Incineration
Pollution from Waste Incineration
This report is an appendix to a 2021 investigation by the British All-Party Parliamentary Group on Air Pollution. It is a synopsis of presentations by experts on health and air quality impacts and contains many interesting findings. As just one example, on the toxicology of fine particulate matter, apparently the standard set for measuring particles is based on their weight or mass. However, ‘this is not a very useful metric. The number of very small particles is much more important as health effects are based on their number rather than their mass. By far the majority of particles are ultrafine particles or nanoparticles (PM0.1), but they weigh very little. Toxicologists study the interaction of human wet biochemistry with the surface chemistry associated with particles. What particles are made of is of less importance than their size, the latter being the most critical factor. Very small particles — ones that are less than 100 nanometres (a nanometre is one-millionth of a millimetre) — become very reactive; that is how catalysts are made. In addition, because the formation of the particles has come about through the process of incineration of a heterogenous waste stream, toxic substances, such as dioxins, form on the particles as the gases cool, and the particles are a major way by which dioxins get out of incinerators. It is possible to measure the number of ultrafine particles, but all studies published to date cut off at about three nanometres. From a technical perspective, it is more difficult to measure particles below that size’ (Pollution from Waste Incineration • APPG on Air Pollution • December 2021 p. 4).
The report is 13 pages long but well worth reading.
The health impacts of waste incineration: a systematic review
This review was published in 2019 and needs to be read by all concerned in decisions and about incinerators. It points out that ‘while there is some suggestion that newer incinerator technologies with robust maintenance schedules may be less harmful, but diseases from exposures tend to manifest only after many years of cumulative exposure, so it is premature to conclude that these newer technologies improve safety’.
Some of its advice to governments is that ‘since there has been insufficient time for health effects of newer technology to emerge, a precautionary approach to licensing and monitoring incinerators must continue’ and that prior to any incinerator being installed ‘independent third-party conducted baseline population studies and long-term surveillance cohort studies be mandated to measure the longitudinal and emerging effects of the incinerator’s presence on the local community and the environment’.
Finally, it concludes that ‘incineration for waste management, including waste-to-energy options, is likely to remain an alternative that governments will consider. However, the financial and ecological costs of waste to energy are comparably high. Building reliance on a waste stream for energy counters the need to reduce waste overall. This review suggests that incineration is not without problems and so it is an option that needs to be pursued carefully with close monitoring. Local community groups have a basis for legitimate concern and so siting of incineration facilities needs to take these concerns into account. Early transparent consultation with communities about these facilities is essential’.
The latter has been missing so far from Richmond Valley Council, the Department of Planning and the EP&A
Click here to download the study
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Quality Impacts of Incineration and Landfill
This 2022 report by Eunomia for the National Toxics Network is detailed and comprehensive. It’s a most interesting report if you take the time to read it. Some of the findings are that ‘the carbon intensity of power generation is much higher than renewables or future grid electricity (p. 38), ‘in areas of Australia that fail to meet the voluntary recycling targets for plastics via collection of these materials at the kerbside, authorities will achieve more substantial GHG emission reductions through investment in bio-stabilisation systems with advanced pre-treatment – aimed at sending outputs to landfill – than from investment in new incineration capacity (p.41), and that ‘Incineration cannot be considered a ‘green’ or low carbon source of electricity, as the emissions per kWh of energy produced are higher than CCGT, renewables, and the likely aggregated future marginal source of electricity in Australia (p.41).
Energy Justice Network’s article on Trash Incineration
This article is also based in America as so far there are no examples of incinerators operating – yet – in Australia. Just one of the interesting issues raised here is that ‘Incinerators for trash, hazardous waste, sewage sludge and other types of waste are typically located in communities of color and low-income communities’. Is this because these communities may not be as politically active as other communities? We haven’t been able to find out the criteria for the State Government deciding to locale incinerators in the 4 Regions in NSW (despite trying), but hope this wasn’t one of them.
Myths versus Facts
An interesting article by GAIA which, although published in 2010 and focused predominantly on America, is just as relevant here in NSW.
Incinerators in Disguise
(Courtesy of Zero Waste)
Australians have always been wary of waste incineration and communities have been opposed to any proposals that have arisen. Public resistance to incineration is also growing in many other countries. In the UK alone, over 80 groups have been established to oppose plans to build new waste incinerators. On a global scale there are many more individuals and organizations who oppose waste incineration with the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives claiming 800 grassroots organizations and individual members world-wide.
This has forced the incinerator industry into a public-relations make-over where the word ‘incinerator’ is rarely mentioned and has been replaced by terms such as ‘gasification, pyrolysis, plasma arc and waste to energy (WtE)’.
These technologies are all waste incinerator technologies according to the European Union and the US Environmental Protection Authority. The configuration of each technology varies but they are all designed around single stage or dual stage burning of waste. They all produce a similar profile of pollutants (although the concentrations may vary) and all have similar negative effects on communities and alternative resource recovery practices such as recycling and composting.
Incinerator proponents have attempted to make a distinction between ‘old’ incinerators and ‘new’ technologies. This is part of promoting the argument that environmentalists and communities are objecting to the old polluting technology which has now been replaced by ‘new clean’ technology. However, all of the ‘new’ technologies are basic incineration variants that have been subject to incremental changes over time and most continue to suffer from a poor environmental track record.
While tighter air quality standards have forced waste incinerators to increase pollution controls (especially for dioxins) they continue to be responsible for discharges of a large range of atmospheric pollutants and dioxin release incidents. The improvements to air emissions have also led to a much higher level of contamination of incinerator residues such as ash which must still be sent to landfill.
Incineration – an outdated industry
The incinerator industry has rebuilt its image around the generation of electricity from burning waste. They claim that this is a renewable and ‘green’ form of energy generation which is climate friendly and can replace landfill emissions of methane.
These claims are critical to the establishment of the incinerator industry in Australia because of the government subsidies and credits available to renewable energy generators.
Because a percentage of the municipal waste they will burn is organic in origin or biogenic they claim this constitutes renewable energy and have been aggressively lobbying state and federal government to accept this logic. However while the organic wastes may come from renewable sources the energy created through the incineration process is comparatively more climate polluting than other energy sources such as oil, gas and coal.
Not renewable, barely energy
This GAIA document published in 2011 and focusing on America and Canada is as relevant today for us in NSW as it was then. Whilst some things have changed, it demonstrates the hard road ahead for the fight against Waste to Energy incinerators and how incinerator companies in the US were lobbying for public subsidies and incentives for staged incineration such as gasification, pyrolysis and plasma arc. It makes the point that despite unequal access to resources, empowered local communities were consistently succeeding in turning back these projects.
Changing the rules for dirty energy
This is a media release by the Alliance for a Clean Environment on the Western Australian Government’s 2013 decision to ‘redefine principles of sustainability and waste management that have been
accepted around the world for many years, even in countries where incinerators operate. In effect it allows
thermal waste disposal technologies to be redefined as equally beneficial to the environment as recycling and reusing’.
