DOCSLIB.ORG

Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies in Europe Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies in Europe A Recource for Hospital Administrators, Facility Managers, Health Care Professionals, Environmental Advocates, and Community Members June 2004 Health Care Without Harm Europe Chlumova 17 130 00 Prague, Czech Republic tel./fax: +420 222 782 808, 222 781 471 [email protected], www.noharm.org Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies in Europe June 2004 This resource book is based on the report ”Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies: A Resource for Hospital Administrators, Facility Managers, Health Care Professionals, Environmental Advocates, and Community Members” issued by Health Care Without Harm in August 2001. While the general chapters on waste minimisation and waste categories are shortened, more space is given to the description of technologies that operate in Europe. The final document was written by Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, HCWH, USA; Dr. Čestmír Hrdinka, HCWH, Czech Republic and Paweł Głuszyński, Waste Prevention Association, Poland with contributions from Ralph Ryder, Communities Against Toxics, UK; Michael McKeon, Irish Doctors for the Environment, Ireland; Rui Berkemaier, Quercus, Portugal and Aurélie Gauthier, CNIID, France. Health Care Without Harm Europe Chlumova 17 130 00 Prague 3, Czech Republic Tel.: +420 222 782 808 Fax: +420 222 781 471 [email protected] www.noharm.org Preface Until recently, incineration was the almost examples), the overwhelming majority of exclusive method of treating hazardous medical medical waste incinerators exceed the dioxin waste. In 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection emission limit of 0.1 ng/m3 TEQ. Agency’s (EPA) Reassessment of 2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and There are two ways these new member countries Related Compounds identified medical waste can meet the statutory limits in the future – they incineration as the single largest source of dioxin can either equip incineration plants with very air pollution in the United States of America. expensive filters, or close them and set up the In 1997, the EPA promulgated regulations for alternative - non-incineration - technologies. The existing and new incinerators, setting new latter are more environmentally friendly and emission limits. Existing incinerators had to be usually cheaper than incinerators. Non- equipped with additional air pollution control incineration technologies (unlike incinerators) do devices to comply with the new legislation not produce toxic dioxins and their introduction requirements. For the vast majority of hospitals is therefore in accordance with the Stockholm and other medical waste incinerator operators Convention on POPs (Persistent Organic however, investing in efficient filters was too Pollutants) that entered into force in May 2004. expensive and resulted in the closure of more than five thousands medical waste incinerators. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the incineration of waste results In 2000, stricter emission limits for medical waste in the formation of Persistent Organic Pollutants, incinerators were introduced in the European including dioxins, thus contributing to global Union. This resulted in the closure of many POPs emissions. Although installation of new air incinerators and an increase in the number of non- emission control devices could reduce dioxin incineration facilities for treating infectious medical emissions in stack gas, this is usually accompanied waste. However, the speed of the introduction of with an increase of dioxin in fly ash. As the alternative treatments is much slower than in Stockholm Convention recognises releases to air, the USA and incineration remains the prevailing water and land, future support for incineration method of treating medical waste in Europe. would go against the primary goal of this convention, which is the reduction of POPs. Although incineration is still widely used, non- incineration technologies are winning increasing The problem of pollution caused by the support in Europe. In Slovenia, all infectious incineration of medical waste has been waste has been treated by using a steam-based recognised by the World Health Organisation system since 90’s. Portugal has closed almost all (WHO). In its policy paper entitled “Health-care its medical waste incinerators and is treating Waste Management” (March 2004) WHO states medical waste in autoclaves. More than 50 that a long-term goal shall be: “Effective, scaled- operators in France have introduced up promotion of non-incineration technologies shredding/steam/drying systems for medical for the final disposal of health-care wastes to waste treatment in last 10 years. The Joint Waste prevent the disease burden from (a) unsafe Management Board of Ireland decided in 2003 to health-care waste management and (b) exposure decontaminate the vast majority of its medical to dioxins and furans.” waste by autoclaves using hot steam. Health Care Without Harm hopes that all Recently, 10 new countries entered the European countries in Europe will support the development Union. Incineration facilities in these countries of non-incineration medical waste treatment are mostly old and not complying with EU technologies instead of choosing to reconstruct emission limits for incinerators. In the Czech and equip existing outdated incineration plants or Republic and Poland, (taking these countries as supporting the construction of new ones. 2 Health Care Without Harm Executive summary The international Convention on the Elimination a small part of the total waste generated by of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) lists medical facilities, it accounts for a considerable medical waste incinerators among the main portion of the costs incurred by a health care dioxin sources in the environment. However, facility for the disposal of medical waste. medical waste incinerators emit a wide range of pollutants besides dioxins and furans. These Four basic processes are used in alternative include heavy metals (lead, mercury and medical waste treatment: thermal, chemical, cadmium), fine dust particles, hydrogen chloride, irradiative and biological. Thermal processes rely sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen on heat to destroy pathogens (disease-causing oxides and other pollutants like Products of micro-organisms). The low-heat processes utilise Incomplete Combustion (PICs) into the moist heat (usually steam) or dry heat. Chemical atmosphere. They also generate highly processes employ disinfectants to destroy contaminated ash that is potentially hazardous to pathogens or chemicals to react with the waste. human health. It is scientifically acknowledged Irradiation involves ionising radiation to destroy that these pollutants can have serious negative micro-organisms while biological processes use impacts on the health of incineration plant enzymes to decompose organic matter. personnel, the public and the environment. Mechanical processes, such as shredders, mixing arms, or compactors, are added as supplementary In order to maximise the benefits of non- processes to render the waste unrecognisable, incineration technologies, a basic concept is improve heat or mass transfer, or reduce the presented of which the underlying elements are volume of treated waste. waste minimisation and segregation. By implementing a program that includes source For each of these processes, an overview and reduction, segregation, recycling and other principles of operation are presented along with pollution prevention techniques, health-care information on the types of waste treated, services can reduce the amount of infectious emissions, waste residues, microbial inactivation waste that needs to be decontaminated. efficacy, advantages, disadvantages and other issues. Specific examples of technologies in A waste analysis is an important step in selecting operation in Europe are provided. Technology any non-incineration technology. Contrary to descriptions are based on vendor data, popular belief infectious medical waste is independent evaluations and other non- estimated to be approximately 15% or less of proprietary sources where available. Since the overall waste stream. By the introduction of technologies change quickly in a dynamic efficient waste segregation and classification market, it is advisable for facilities interested in systems based on a real threat from infectious using a non-incineration method to contact the waste, this amount can be reduced in many cases vendors to get the latest and most accurate data to 3-5%. when conducting the evaluation of any technology. Medical waste can be defined as waste generated as a result of diagnosis, treatment and immunisation of humans or animals. It is useful to categorise the overall waste stream into the following four categories: Municipal solid Health Care Without Harm does not endorse waste, infectious waste, hazardous waste and any technology, company, or brand name, and low-level radioactive waste. Waste categories does not claim to present a comprehensive list are specified in the European Waste Catalogue of technologies. and might be further defined by national legislation. Although infectious waste is only Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies in Europe 3 Steam disinfection, a standard process in necessary to prevent worker exposure to the hospitals, is done in autoclaves and retorts. ionising radiation. Biological processes, such as Tuttnauer is an example of an autoclave. More the Bio-Converter, use enzymes to decompose recent designs
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies
    Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies A Resource for Hospital Administrators, Facility Managers, Health Care Professionals, Environmental Advocates, and Community Members August 2001 Health Care Without Harm 1755 S Street, N.W. Unit 6B Washington, DC 20009 Phone: 202.234.0091 www.noharm.org Health Care Without Harm 1755 S Street, N.W. Suite 6B Washington, DC 20009 Phone: 202.234.0091 www.noharm.org Printed with soy-based inks on Rolland Evolution, a 100% processed chlorine-free paper. Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies A Resource for Hospital Administrators, Facility Managers, Health Care Professionals, Environmental Advocates, and Community Members August 2001 Health Care Without Harm www.noharm.org Preface THE FOUR LAWS OF ECOLOGY . Meanwhile, many hospital staff, such as Hollie Shaner, RN of Fletcher-Allen Health Care in Burlington, Ver- 1. Everything is connected to everything else, mont, were appalled by the sheer volumes of waste and 2. Everything must go somewhere, the lack of reduction and recycling efforts. These indi- viduals became champions within their facilities or 3. Nature knows best, systems to change the way that waste was being managed. 4. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle, 1971 In the spring of 1996, more than 600 people – most of them community activists – gathered in Baton Rouge, Up to now, there has been no single resource that pro- Louisiana to attend the Third Citizens Conference on vided a good frame of reference, objectively portrayed, of Dioxin and Other Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals. The non-incineration technologies for the treatment of health largest workshop at the conference was by far the one care wastes.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Waste Treatment Technologies
    Medical Waste Treatment Technologies Ruth Stringer International Science and Policy Coordinator Health Care Without Harm Dhaka January 2011 Who is Health Care Without Harm? An International network focussing on two fundamental rights: • Right to healthcare • Right to a healthy environment Health Care Without Harm • Issues • Offices in – Medical waste –USA –Mercury – Europe – PVC – Latin America – Climate and health – South East Asia – Food • Key partners in – Green buildings –South Africa – Pharmaceuticals – India –Nurses – Tanzania – Safer materials –Mexico • Members in 53 countries Global mercury phase-out • HCWH and WHO partnering to eliminate mercury from healthcare • Part of UN Environment Programme's Mercury Products Partnership. • www.mercuryfreehealthcare.org • HCWH and WHO are principal cooperating agencies • 8-country project to reduce impacts from medical waste – esp dioxins and mercury • Model hospitals in Argentina, India, Latvia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Senegal and Vietnam • Technology development in Tanzania Incineration No longer a preferred treatment technology in many places Meeting modern emission standards costs millions of dollars Ash must be treated as hazardous waste Small incinerators are highly polluting Maintenance costs can be high, breakdowns common Decline in Medical Waste Incinerators in the U.S. 8,000 6,200 6,000 5,000 4,000 2,400 2,000 Incinerators 115 83 57 #of Medical Waste Waste Medical #of 0 1988 1994 1997 2003 2006 2008 Year SOURCES: 1988: “Hospital Waste Combustion Study-Data Gathering Phase,” USEPA, December 1998; 1994: “Medical Waste Incinerators-Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines: Industry Profile Report for New and Existing Facilities,” USEPA, July 1994; 1997: 40 CFR 60 in the Federal Register, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Technologies: Waste to Energy Facilities
    WASTE TECHNOLOGIES: WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITIES A Report for the Strategic Waste Infrastructure Planning (SWIP) Working Group Complied by WSP Environmental Ltd for the Government of Western Australia, Department of Environment and Conservation May 2013 Quality Management Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Date May 2013 Prepared by Kevin Whiting, Steven Wood and Mick Fanning Signature Checked by Matthew Venn Signature Authorised by Kevin Whiting Signature Project number 00038022 Report number File reference Project number: 00038022 Dated: May 2013 2 Revised: Waste Technologies: Waste to Energy Facilities A Report for the Strategic Waste Infrastructure Planning (SWIP) Working Group, commissioned by the Government of Western Australia, Department of Environment and Conservation. May 2013 Client Waste Management Branch Department of Environment and Conservation Level 4 The Atrium, 168 St George’s Terrace, PERTH, WA 6000 Locked Bag 104 Bentley DC WA 6983 Consultants Kevin Whiting Head of Energy-from-Waste & Biomass Tel: +44 207 7314 4647 [email protected] Mick Fanning Associate Consultant Tel: +44 207 7314 5883 [email protected] Steven Wood Principal Consultant Tel: +44 121 3524768 [email protected] Registered Address WSP Environmental Limited 01152332 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF 3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................. 6 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Judenburg, Austria
    JUDENBURG DISTRICT HEATING GRID BASED Best Practice Factsheet ON WASTE HEAT FROM ###9#999 PULP &PAPER MILL Judenburg, Austria District heating grid based on waste heat from pulp&paper mill Zellstoff Pöls AG DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION The Zellstoff Pöls AG annually processes approximately 2 million cubic meters of thinning wood and sawn timber into both pulp and paper. Together with the know-how partner "Bioenergie Wärmeservice Gmbh” from Köflach, an expert for district heating and waste heat recovery systems, a joint venture was formed into the company “Biowärme Aichfeld Gmbh”. The objective was to use the waste heat sensibly, in combination with an existing biomass heating plant and a storage solution with large-district- pressure reservoirs. The result allows for a sustainable, environmentally friendly and regional heat supply for more than 15,000 households in the greater Aichfeld area. For this purpose, the joint venture partners invested € 18 million and laid over 18 km of piping for the district heating project. This is a heat grid infrastructure project, to connect the cities, business and industrials parks in the region. The cities, business and industrial parks are served by ESCOS, which take over the heat from the infrastructure heat grid, and distribute the heat to the customers. Project supported by the Interreg CENTRAL EUROPE Programme and funded under the European Regional Development Fund. JUDENBURG DISTRICT HEATING GRID BASED Best Practice Factsheet ON WASTE HEAT FROM ###9#999 PULP &PAPER MILL PARTNERS INVOLVED Zellstoff Pöls AG and Biowärme Wärmeservice GmbH form the Biowärme Aichfeld GmbH, which is the operator of the infrastructure heat grid, connecting the sub-heat grids of the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Treatment Solutions
    Waste Treatment Solutions Waste Treatment Solutions As industry leaders, we offer customers across North America reliable, safe and compliant solutions for over 600 hazardous waste streams, PCBs, TSCA and non-hazardous waste. Unequaled service. Solutions you can trust. USecology.com To support the needs of customers from coast to coast, US Ecology has 19 treatment and recycling facilities throughout North America, including some of the largest treatment and stabilization operations. This enables us to accept waste in a wide range of consistencies and shipping containers, from bulk liquids and solids to drums, totes and bags. Plus, our facilities are backed by six state-of-the-art hazardous and radioactive waste landfills, along with a nationwide transportation network. Treatment Processes US Ecology’s RCRA-permitted and TSCA-approved facilities US Ecology is the only commercial offer a wide variety of waste treatment technologies. treatment company in the USA • Chemical oxidation processes to treat waste that is USEPA-authorized to delist containing organic contaminants 15 inorganic hazardous wastes. • Microencapsulation to reduce the leachability Delisting offers an attractive, safe of hazardous debris streams, allowing material to be safely disposed in RCRA Subtitle C landfills and more compliant disposal • Chemical stabilization de-characterizes waste, option, particularly for those with enabling safe landfill disposal F-listed hazardous waste codes. • Thermal desorption to process and/or recycle high organic contaminated materials For more information: • Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO) air Call (800) 592-5489 or management system enables management go to www.usecology.com of high-VOC, RCRA-regulated wastes • Wastewater treatment for hazardous and non-hazardous wastewater, including oily and corrosive streams • Cyanide destruction and oxidizer deactivation treatment technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Franchise Solid Waste Services City of Goleta
    Proposal for Franchise Solid Waste Services City of Goleta March 15, 2018 On August 15, 2017 Council gave direction to bring back a proposal for a ten year solid waste contract extension within twelve months for consideration. In compliance with that request, MarBorg Industries is pleased to present the City of Goleta with a Proposal for a ten year extension to the Franchise Solid Waste Services Contract for the City of Goleta. MarBorg is a long-standing partner of the City of Goleta, and hopes to continue this relationship over the next decade as solid waste regulations and handling procedures within California and Santa Barbara County evolve. This proposal builds on the current franchise agreement, maintaining all services that benefit both the Goleta rate-payers and the City of Goleta, while providing enhancements for all parties as well. These contract enhancements include: Reduced Rates • Residential Rates will be reduced by 15% from current rates. • Multi-Family Rates for can & cart customers will be reduced by 15% from current rates. • Commercial and Multi-Family bin rates will be reduced by 5% from current rates. • All rate reductions are proposed be implemented July 1, 2018, allowing customers to enjoy rate reductions prior to the end of our current agreement in 2021. • These rate reductions will save City ratepayers over $2,000,000 through the next three years of our current contract period, and will continue to serve as a rate reduction throughout the extended ten year term saving customers another $7,000,000 from current rates. Increased City Recycling Education Payment • MarBorg Industries is currently paying $25,000 per year to a City recycling education fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management
    10 Waste Management Coordinating Lead Authors: Jean Bogner (USA) Lead Authors: Mohammed Abdelrafie Ahmed (Sudan), Cristobal Diaz (Cuba), Andre Faaij (The Netherlands), Qingxian Gao (China), Seiji Hashimoto (Japan), Katarina Mareckova (Slovakia), Riitta Pipatti (Finland), Tianzhu Zhang (China) Contributing Authors: Luis Diaz (USA), Peter Kjeldsen (Denmark), Suvi Monni (Finland) Review Editors: Robert Gregory (UK), R.T.M. Sutamihardja (Indonesia) This chapter should be cited as: Bogner, J., M. Abdelrafie Ahmed, C. Diaz, A. Faaij, Q. Gao, S. Hashimoto, K. Mareckova, R. Pipatti, T. Zhang, Waste Management, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Waste Management Chapter 10 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................. 587 10.5 Policies and measures: waste management and climate ....................................................... 607 10.1 Introduction .................................................... 588 10.5.1 Reducing landfill CH4 emissions .......................607 10.2 Status of the waste management sector ..... 591 10.5.2 Incineration and other thermal processes for waste-to-energy ...............................................608 10.2.1 Waste generation ............................................591 10.5.3 Waste minimization, re-use and
    [Show full text]
  • 39 DOUZELAGE CONFERENCE SIGULDA 24 April – 27 April 2014
    AGROS (CY) ALTEA (E) ASIKKALA (FIN) th BAD KÖTZTING (D) 39 DOUZELAGE CONFERENCE BELLAGIO (I) BUNDORAN (IRL) CHOJNA (PL) GRANVILLE (F) HOLSTEBRO (DK) HOUFFALIZE (B) JUDENBURG (A) SIGULDA KÖSZEG (H) MARSASKALA (MT) MEERSSEN (NL) NIEDERANVEN (L) OXELÖSUND (S) th th PREVEZA (GR) 24 April – 27 April 2014 PRIENAI (LT) SESIMBRA (P) SHERBORNE (GB) SIGULDA (LV) SIRET (RO) SKOFIA LOKA (SI) MINUTES SUŠICE (CZ) TRYAVNA (BG) TÜRI (EST) ZVOLEN (SK) DOUZELAGE – EUROPEAN TOWN TWINNING ASSOCIATION PARTICIPANTS AGROS Andreas Latzias Metaxoula Kamana Alexis Koutsoventis Nicolas Christofi ASIKKALA Merja Palokangos-Viitanen Pirjo Ala-Hemmila Salomaa Miika BAD KOTZTING Wolfgang Kershcer Agathe Kerscher Isolde Emberger Elisabeth Anthofer Saskia Muller-Wessling Simona Gogeissl BELLAGIO Donatella Gandola Arianna Sancassani CHOJNA Janusz Cezary Salamończyk Norbert Oleskow Rafał Czubik Andrzej Będzak Anna Rydzewska Paweł Woźnicki BUNDORAN Denise Connolly Shane Smyth John Campbell GRANVILLE Fay Guerry Jean-Claude Guerry HOLSTEBRO Jette Hingebjerg Mette Grith Sorensen Lene Bisgaard Larsen Victoria Louise Tilsted Joachim Peter Tilsted 2 DOUZELAGE – EUROPEAN TOWN TWINNING ASSOCIATION HOUFFALIZE Alphonse Henrard Luc Nollomont Mathilde Close JUDENBURG Christian Fuller Franz Bachmann Andrea Kober Theresa Hofer Corinna Haasmann Marios Agathocleous KOSZEG Peter Rege Kitti Mercz Luca Nagy Aliz Pongracz MARSASKALA Mario Calleja Sandro Gatt Charlot Mifsud MEERSSEN Karel Majoor Annigje Luns-Kruytbosch Ellen Schiffeleers Simone Borm Bert Van Doorn Irene Raedts NIEDERANVEN Jos
    [Show full text]
  • Biohazardous Waste Management Plan
    BIOHAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MARCH 2021 Environmental Health and Safety Department University of Washington Box 354400 Seattle, WA 98195-4400 Phone: 206.543.7262 FAX: 206.543.3351 www.ehs.washington.edu FOREWARD Page 2 of 22 ￜ March 2021 FOREWARD The University of Washington Infectious Waste Committee and the Institutional Biosafety Committee have approved and provided guidance in developing and improving this Biohazardous Waste Management Plan. The Plan has been reviewed and is endorsed by the Senior Director of the Environmental Health and Safety Department (EH&S). ______________________________________________________________________________________ Katia Harb, Senior Director, Environmental Health & Safety Department (EH&S) Environmental Health & Safety | www.ehs.washington.edu | BIOHAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS March 2021 ￜ Page 3 of 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWARD .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 3 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
    [Show full text]
  • A Pharmaceutical and Sharps Waste Compliance Service for Your Facilities
    A pharmaceutical and sharps waste compliance service for your facilities Hospital leaders know that often staff do not correctly segregate pharmaceutical waste from sharps waste. A comingled pharmaceutical and sharps waste compliance service introduced in the Pacific Northwest a year ago takes this drug waste and puts both waste streams into one container that can be in the patient room and that helps keep hospitals compliant. Only about five percent of most hospitals’ regulated medical waste streams are RCRA hazardous pharmaceuticals. This leaves the remaining 95 percent of most hospital formularies deemed Washington State Only Dangerous Pharmaceuticals (a.k.a. non- RCRA) to be managed by staff who want to do the right thing. First they must understand the importance of disposing non-RCRA drugs in a responsible place for proper processing, as Virginia Mason in Seattle does with approximately 2,000 drugs in its formulary. There is also the challenge of maintaining a safe work environment and being OSHA compliant with sharps disposal. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that are 385,000 healthcare worker (HCW) needlestick and sharps-related injuries annually in hospitals nationwide.1 Stericycle’s Rx Waste Comingle program enables staff to dispose of both non-RCRA pharmaceutical waste and sharps waste in one container. This makes it easy on staff to quickly dispose of both waste streams conveniently while in patient rooms and helps reduce needlestick injuries during disposal. Monthly comingle reports make it easy for healthcare leaders to track and budget for appropriately managing these two important waste streams. The comingle program being offered in the Pacific Northwest helps healthcare facilities increase regulatory compliance with The Joint Commission, EPA, DOT, OSHA and, specifically in the Pacific Northwest, the Department of Ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Plug-In Electric Vehicles: Challenges and Opportunities
    Plug-In Electric Vehicles: Challenges and Opportunities Siddiq Khan and Martin Kushler June 2013 Report Number T133 © American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 529 14th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20045 Phone: (202) 507-4000 Twitter: @ACEEEDC Facebook.com/myACEEE www.aceee.org Contents Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... iii Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1 The Electric Grid .............................................................................................................................................1 Well-to-Wheels Efficiency..................................................................................................................................3 Impacts of Vehicle Electrification .....................................................................................................................6 Oil Consumption ............................................................................................................................................6 Emissions .........................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Why Incineration Is Bad for Our Economy, Environment and Community
    - - WHY INCINERATION IS BAD FOR OUR ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY SEPTEMBER 2011 www.ecocycle.org/zerowaste 1 | P a g e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eco-Cycle has been involved in the issue of what to do with society’s discards if they aren’t landfilled for 35 years. Our focus and expertise is in recycling, composting, reuse and waste reduction, but over the last ten years, we have been forced to become experts in another alternative—burning trash to make energy. While burning trash has always been considered as an alternative to landfilling, the industry received a tremendous jumpstart in the early 2000s when President George W. Bush and the EPA classified burning waste as a “renewable energy source,” thus making waste-to-energy (WTE) projects eligible for all the tax breaks and perks intended for the solar and wind industries. Suddenly, the incinerator industry in America was alive again after a decade of no activity, and began seeking to acquire as much waste as they could in hopes of building new facilities around the country. However, the financial reality of burning trash is that it is more expensive than both landfilling and recycling, not to mention the seriously negative environmental and social impacts of running a waste-to-energy facility. The cost, pollution and NIMBY issues in siting facilities were the issues that crippled the industry in the mid 1990s, and those three key concerns remain today. Despite the tax breaks and “renewable energy” status, the economic problems related to project scale and cost remain unresolved. This report analyzes the three primary technologies commonly known as “waste-to-energy” (incineration, conversion technologies like pyrolysis and gasification, and anaerobic digestion) and their potential application in the U.S.
    [Show full text]