Abstract
A controversial energy issue in the United States concerns the use of household and commercial waste as a fuel for producing electric power. Interest in waste-to-energy power plants began in the late 70’s, but accelerated as federal and state governments began to close down old style solid waste landfills to protect groundwater.1 Initially, waste-to-energy plants were seen as a panacea for solid waste and energy problems. One argument frequently advanced by combustion technology vendors is that incinerators are a cleaner source of electric power than conventional fossil fuel fired power plants. Today Waste-to-Energy plants are now increasingly opposed by citizen groups, local governments and energy advocates as serious new air pollution threads and as a misdirection of public or consumer funds that would be better spent on energy conservation and waste recycling facilities.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Footnotes and References
Some studies place waste-to-energy incinerators in a category of renewable energy resources. See, Public Citizen, The Power of the States: A 50 State Survey of Renewable Energy, Critical Mass Energy Project, Washington DC, June, 1990. The renewable label is probably inappropriate for waste-to-energy technology. A substantial portion of the waste stream and BTU content for incinerators is derived from fossil-fuel. Plastics constitute 12–13 % of the volume of the municipal solid waste.
Office of Technology Assessment, Facing America’s Trash, What Next For Municipal Solid Waste?, OTA-O-424, (Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, October, 1989), Page 242, [hereafter cited as “OTA Report”]. Incinerators also use natural gas as an auxiliary fuel at start up, shut down and at times when combustion chamber temperatures fall below specific levels. Additionally, municipal solid waste is not “renewable” in the same manner as hydroelectric, solar, wind and biomass power, as there is substantial energy and materials waste in consumer packaging.
As of 1987, New York State had the largest number of garbage incinerators of all states, with Florida having the largest amount of incinerator capacity, as measured in tons of refuse processed per day. U.S.E.P.A., Municipal Waste Combustion Study, Report to Congress, prepared by EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Research & Development, EPA/530-SW-87-021a, June, 1987, p. 20 [hereafter cited as “EPA Report to Congress”); U.S. Conference of Mayors & National Resource Recovery Assn., 1989 City Currents, Washington D.C.
Draft New York State Energy Plan, Volume V, Issue 4: Solid Waste/Energy, May, 1989, p. 6, [hereafter cited as “Draft NYS energy Plan”]. Although labelled “draft”, these documents “form the basis for the recommendations and are part of the plan.” Overview, Final New York State Energy Plan, (September, 1989), p. 1.
EPA Report to Congress, supra note 2 at pp. 20–25. For data on the number of plants that will generate electricity, see note 12 infra.
16 U.S.C. § 824a 3, (Supp. 1988); 18 C.F.R. § 292.303(a) (1987).
New York has required utilities to purchase power from independent power producers at a higher rate than that required by PURPA. N.Y. Public Service Law § 66-C. The law was recently upheld. See, In The Matter of Long Lake Energy Cooperation v. Public Service Commission of the State of New York, 148 A.D. 84, 543 N.Y.S. 755 (N.Y. App. Div. June 29, 1989), motion for leave to appeal denied Dec. 14, 1989. FERC, however, has issued a ruling prohibiting states from imposing rates that exceed avoided costs in wholesale purchases in interstate commerce. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. et al., 43 F.E.R.C. P61,067 docket #EL87-53-000 (April 14, 1988).
N.Y. Public Service Commission (NYSPSC) Case No. 88-E-246, Opinion No. 89–30, Opinion & Order Establishing Bidding Guidelines, (Sept. 13, 1989); NYPSC Case No. 29409, Opinion No. 88–15, Order Concerning Bidding Avoided Cost Pricing and Wheeling Issues (June, 1988). See also, NYPSC Case No. 29409, Opinion and Order No. 8845(A), November 2, 1988, pp. 23, 30–32.
See, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM88-5-000, March 16, 1988.
OTA Report, supra note 1 at p. 242.
Bonneville Power Administration, Estimating Environmental Costs and Benefits for Five Generating Resources, Final Report: Description of Their Likely Significant Environmental Effects, and the Economic Value of Those Effects, by ECO Northwest, Ltd., Shapiro and Associates, Inc., and Seton, Johnson and Odell, Inc., March, 1986 (hereafter cited as BPA/ECO Five Resources). The authors state that a further allocation must be made where a plant provides both waste heat for factory processes and electrical generation. ESRG has developed a formula for allocating emissions impacts between electric and steam production from cogeneration plants. Its method offsets emission effects by the amount of fossil fuel use displaced by utilization of cogenerator waste heat.
ESRG, The Role of Hydro-Quebec Power in a Least-Cost Energy Resource Plan for Vermont, prepared for Department of Public Service, State of Vermont, January 19, 1990 at p. 9–28 to 9–30.
The need to allocate between steam and electric production, however, is diminishing for waste-to-energy plants. Most municipal waste incinerators being built today are constructed solely to generate electricity. In 1986 almost two-thirds of planned resource recovery facilities (63.9 %) were designed to produce only electricity, while 29.2 % were designed to produce both electricity and steam. Government Advisory Associates, 1986–1987 Resource Recovery Yearbook, Directory and Guide, New York, NY, 1986, p. 36 [hereafter Resource Recovery Yearbook], See also, Draft NYS Energy Plan, Vol. 5, Issue 4, supra note 3 at p. 8.
Draft NYS Energy Plan, supra note 3, at p. 8.
Draft NYS Energy Plan, supra note 3 at p. 6. 13 Resource Recovery Yearbook, supra note 12, at 40.
For comparison, Bonneville Power Authority’s study determined that the expected annual electric power output of a 500 ton per day, 10 MW incineration plant would be 65,700,000 kWh. BPA/ECO Five Resources, supra note 12, at xiv, 2–13,4–4.
The 76 % capacity factor was provided by Dr. Maarten de Kadt, Inform, Inc., New York, N.Y., personal communication February 7, 1990. The calculation in the text assumes a power production rate of 500 kilowatt hours per ton of refuse. The figure would be higher for refuse derived fuel (RDF) plants whose fuel (solid waste that is processed to remove some non-combustibles) will have a higher BTU value per ton.
The average tipping fees charged by mass burning plants in the U.S. was $26.64 per ton. Resource Recovery Yearbook, supra note 12, at p. 96. We used the more conservative figure, $39 per ton, since that is the tipping fee charged at a recently constructed landfill in New York. See, Draft NYS Energy Plan, supra note 3, Vol. V, May, 1989.
Draft NYS Energy Plan, supra note 3 at p. 8.
Personal communication from Dr. Allen Herskowitz, Natural Resource Defense Counsel, February 1, 1990.
List provided by Dr. Maarten de Kadt, Inform, Inc., New York, NY, personal communication, February 7, 1990.
Ujihara A. and M. Gough, Managing Ash From Municipal Waste Incinerators, A Report, Resources for the Future, Center for Risk Management, Washington, DC; November 1989, [hereafter cited as Managing Ash]. The report notes three studies which conclude that worker and public exposure risks are low. It also points out that EP toxicity tests for ash have poor reducibility and may not adequately mimic the actual conditions within different types of landfills (i.e. co-disposal facilities that take both ash and solid waste vs. monofills restricted to ash only).
Managing Ash, supra note 22 at p. 8.
Bridle, T., et al., “Evaluation of Heavy Metal Leachability from Solid Wastes”, Wat Sci. Tech., Vol. 19 R, 10, pp. 1029–1026, 1987. The study was conducted by members of the Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service, Wastewater Technology Center, Burlington, Ontario.
See, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustor Ashes and Leachates From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Monoßls, and Codisposal Sites, prepared by NUS Corp, for Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-87-028A, Washington, D.C., October, 1987.
See generally, Managing Ash, supra note 22. (“Federal laws and regulations that mandate how ash is to be managed are unclear and tests for deteraiining whether it is a hazardous waste produce ambiguous results. This situation has served both to preserve use of incinerators and to delay federal action to improve ash management”).
OTA Report, supra note 1 at pp. 37–39,258–259.
See BPA/ECO Five Resources, supra note 12.
BPA/ECO Five Resources, supra note 11 at p. 4–4.
BPA/ECO Five Resources, supra note 11 at Appendix C1–55, C1–63.
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Operational Guidance to State and Local Agencies for Best Available Control Technology Determination for Permitting New and Modified Municipal Waste Combustors, June, 1987.
54 Federal Register 52251 (December 20, 1989), Standards of Performance for New York Stationary Sources; Municipal Waste Combustors. EPA also proposed standards for existing incinerators, which will require retrofit of a variety of emission controls by the mid 1990s.
Id.
The Hempstead, Westchester County, and Niagara Falls plants in New York State are each designed to incinerate in excess of 2200 tons per day. These were operating in 1989. The proposed Brooklyn Nany Yard plant is projected to handle 3000 tons per day by 1993. A Staten Island plant (3000 tons per day) and a Bronx plant (2000 tons per day) are being planned for construction in 1997. Draft NYS Energy Plan, Vol. V, Issue 4, supra note 3 at p. 7.
EPA/ECO, Five Resources, Technical Appendices, supra note 12, at p. C1–54.
Radian Corporation, Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Assessment of Health Risks Associated with Municipal Waste Combustion Emissions, prepared for U.S.E.P.A. (EPA/530-SW-87-02) Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, D.C. 1989), [hereafter cited as EPA/Radian Report.]
Id. at p. 2–8.
U.S.E.P.A., Response to Petition for Rulemaking and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Assessment of Municipal Waste Combustor Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 52 Fed Reg 25399, 25404 (July 7, 1987).
OTA Report, supra note 1, citing Ashlander, O., The Swedish Dioxin Memorandum, paper presented at ASCE Dioxin Symposium (NY, NY, February 10,187); Franke, B., Review of the Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste Incinerators Proposed for Long Island and New York City, prepared for Newsday (Tacoma Park, MD); Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Nov., 1987;
Webster, T., and P. Connett, Critical Factors in the Assessment of Food Chain Contamination by PCDD/PCDF from Incinerators, paper presented at Dioxin ’87 (Las Vegas, NV: October 4–9, 1987);
World Health Organization, “PCDD and PCDF Emissions from Incinerators for Municipal Sewage Sludge and Solid Waste — Evaluation of Human Exposure, report on World Health Organization meeting; Naples, Mar. 17–21, 1986 (Copenhagen: Regional Office for Europe, 1987).
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Supplemental Health Risk Assessment Technical Work Paper, Volume I: Polychlorinated Dioxins/Polychlorinated Furans, Wisconsin County Resource Recovery Facility, prepared by J.B. Stevens and Associates, April 1988.
OTA Report, supra note 1, at p. 241.
EPA/Radian Report, supra note 35 at pp. 1–3.
See Table V.B.2 “Summary of Damages Due to SO2”.
Bingemer, H. and P. Crutzen, “The Production of Methane from Solid Waste”, Journal of Geophysical Research 92:2189 [hereafter cited as Bingemer]. Another estimate is that landfills in the U.S. Contribute 2–6 % of Global Methane Emissions. OTA Report to Congress, supra note 1 at p. 286.
Bingemer, H. and P. Crutzen, as cited at Draft Policy Options, part IV, p. 40.
OTA Report, supra note 1 at p. 275. 45 Id.
Id. at p. 282.
U.S.E.P.A., Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate: Draft Report to Congress, February, 1989, at p. 189 [hereinafter cited as Draft Policy Options].
Wilkey, M., R. Zimmerman, and H. Isaacson, Methane From Landfills: Preliminary Assessment Workbook, Argonne National Laboratory, Department of Energy, 1982, as cited in Draft Policy Options, supra note 51.
Id.
U.S. EPA, Report to Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United States, Vol. II, EPA/530-SW-88-011B, Washington, D.C., October, 1988 (hereafter cited as EPA, Solid Waste Disposal).
Bingemer, H. and P. Crutzen, supra note 47 at Part VII p. 189.
OTA Report, supra note 1 at p. 283, citing U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Operating Criteria (Part C) Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR Part 258, EPA/530-SW-88-037, Washington DC, July, 1988.
U.S. EPA, Solid Waste Disposal, Report to Congress, supra note 54.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wooley, D.R. (1991). A Comparison of Emissions and Externality Costs of Waste-to-Energy and Coal Fired Electric Power Plants. In: Hohmeyer, O., Ottinger, R.L. (eds) External Environmental Costs of Electric Power. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76712-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76712-8_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-76714-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-76712-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive