1 / 119

Zero Waste 2020 versus Incineration

Zero Waste 2020 versus Incineration. Dr Paul Connett Professor of Chemistry St Lawrence University, Canton, NY Italy, January, 2005 Paul @ fluoride ALERT .org www.no-burn.org. Arguments against incineration. Toxic air emissions Toxic ash Extremely expensive

munin
Télécharger la présentation

Zero Waste 2020 versus Incineration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Zero Waste 2020versusIncineration Dr Paul Connett Professor of Chemistry St Lawrence University, Canton, NY Italy, January, 2005 Paul @ fluorideALERT.org www.no-burn.org

  2. Arguments against incineration • Toxic air emissions • Toxic ash • Extremely expensive • Extremely unpopular and undemocratic • A waste of energy! • There are better alternatives • Incineration is not sustainable

  3. AIR EMISSIONS CO2 + H2O ACID GASES: HCI, HF, SO2 NOx TOXIC METALS: Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc NEW COMPOUNDS: Hundreds of 1) Chlorinated, 2) Brominated, and 3) Fluorinated compounds e.g. 1) PCDDs (DIOXINS) PCDFs (FURANS) 2) PBDEs (poly brominated diphenyl ethers) 3) PFCs (per fluorinated compounds) MODERNARCHITECTS DO THEIRBEST TODISGUISE“SMOKE STACK”

  4. Benzene Depictions

  5. 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 2,3,7,8-TETRA CHLORO DIBENZO DIOXIN

  6. 2,3,7,8-TETRA CHLORO DIBENZO FURAN

  7. There are 17 extremely toxic dioxins and furans. They have chlorine at the 2,3,7 and 8 positions: 7 Dioxins and 10 Furans

  8. DIOXINS IN OUR FOOD • Dioxins are fat soluble and persistent and accumulate in the food chain, specially animal fats. Over 90% of our daily dioxin intake comes from dairy products, meat,and fish.

  9. Dioxins - Major Concerns • Current daily intakes from food exceed European allowable daily intakes. • Dioxins disrupt several different hormonal systems (e.g. male and female sex hormones, thyroid hormone and insulin).

  10. Dioxins - Major Concerns • One liter of cows’ milk gives the same dose of dioxin as breathing air next to the cows for EIGHT MONTHS (Connett and Webster, 1987). • The liver cannot convert dioxins to water soluble products thus they steadily accumulate in human body fat. • A man cannot get rid of dioxins from his fat BUT A woman can… • By having a baby! • This means the highest doses of dioxin go to the fetus and have the potential to disrupt fetal development which is under hormonal control.

  11. WE WANT DIOXIN OUT OF OUR BABIES!

  12. Institute of Medicine, 2003 Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds in the Food Supply Strategies to Decrease Exposure July 1, 2003

  13. Institute of Medicine, 2003 • Fetuses and breastfed infants may be at particular risk from exposure to dioxins due to their potential to cause adverse neurodevelopmental, neurobehavioral, and immune system effects…

  14. Institute of Medicine, 2003 “…recommends that the government place a high public health priority on reducing dioxin intakes by girls and young women in the years well before pregnancy is likely to occur. • Substituting low-fat or skim milk, for whole milk…and other foods lower in animal fat by girls and young women…”

  15. WE WANT DIOXIN OUT OF OUR FOOD!

  16. Incineration is not good for agriculture • Incinerators burn the organics which are needed for organic farming. • Incinerators emit persistent pollutants (like dioxin and toxic metals) which accumulate in food and soil.

  17. Politicians often approve incineration before they have any idea where the toxic ash is going to go!

  18. MODERN TRASH INCINERATOR ELECTRICITY TURBINE WET SCRUBBER SECONDARY CHAMBER DE-NOX STEAM FABRIC FILTER TEMP < 200oC CHUTE BOILER SEMI- DRY SCRUBBER Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION ACTIVATED CHARCOAL GRATES AMMONIA INJECTION BOTTOM ASH FLY ASH TRASH

  19. ASH THE INCINERATOR CRISIS Catch-22 Pollution Equipment 1 TON ASH 3-(4)TONSTRASH 10% FLY ASH 90% BOTTOM ASH Fly ash fails EP TOX test 100% time Bottom ash fails “ “ “ 38% time Combined ash fails “ “ “ 47% time (EDF, 1988)

  20. INCINERATOR ASH - Sweden

  21. Incineration is not good for tourism • Many tourists will be coming from communities which have rejected incineration

  22. Incineration is extremely unpopular • In the US over 300 incinerator proposals defeated since 1985 • In 1985, NYC wanted 6, but got none! • In 1985, California wanted 35 , but only got 3! • In 1985, NJ wanted 17, but only got 5 and those 5 now have an accumulated debt of 1.6 billion dollars! • US has not built a trash incinerator for more than 8 years.

  23. Italian taxpayers are being deceived • The fees to deliver a ton of waste to the incinerator will be more than for the alternatives • The electricity produced will cost taxpayers three times as much as other sources of electricity - because of an Italian law providing a huge subsidy to incinerators.

  24. INCINERATION BURNS FINITE RESOURCES -- EUROPE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE INCINERATION AS A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE.

  25. Incineration is a poor investment • Most of the money spent on incinerators goes into complicated machinery and leaves the community, whereas • The money spent on the alternatives goes into jobs and stays in the community. • With incineration, after 20 years all you are left with is a huge pile of toxic ash, very few extra jobs, and • You will have moved no closer to a sustainable society.

  26. “Even if we made incineration safe We would never make it sensible. It simply does not make sense spending so much tax-payers’ money destroying resources we should be sharing with the future.”

  27. INCINERATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE

  28. UNFORTUNATELYMANYPOWERFUL PEOPLEARE NOT INTERESTEDINSUSTAINABILITY

  29. Their view of the world lookssomething like this…

  30. By the time a high school student leaves school in the US, he or she will have watched over 350,000 TV commercials. Paul Hawken The Ecology of Commerce.

  31. We are living on this planet as if we had another one to go to We cannot run a throwaway society on a finite planet Incinerators simplyBURNthe evidence of this unacceptable practice We need to face the real problem…

  32. Our task is not to dispose of waste but to stop making it

  33. Unfortunately, too many European engineers are getting better and better at tackling questions at the wrong end of the problem

  34. A “BACK-END” THINKER 1. A CUP 2. A BUCKET 3. A FOOT PUMP 4. AN ELECTRIC PUMP

  35. A “FRONT-END” THINKER !

  36. Waste is not a technological problemit is an industrial designproblem

  37. We have to design a zero waste society

  38. “A Citizens’ Agenda for Zero Waste” www.GRRN.ORG (ENGLISH) www.Ambientefuturo.interfree.it (ITALIAN)

  39. VIDEOSpaul@fluorideALERT.org On the Road to Zero Waste Part 1: Nova Scotia, Canada Part 2: Burlington, Vermont, US Part 3: Canberra, Australia. Part 4: San Francisco Bay Area Pieces of Zero Collection 1: Leadership and Creativity

  40. ZERO WASTE BY YES TO A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY NO TO ATHROWAWAY SOCIETY 2020 MOVING TOWARDS THE FRONT END -we need to design waste out of the industrial system NO TO INCINERATION NO TO LANDFILL

  41. To achieve Zero Waste We need three things: 1) COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY (at back end) 2) INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIBILITY (at front end) 3) GOOD LEADERSHIP

  42. Community Responsibility • Begins with separation of compostables, recyclables and residuals (e.g. San Francisco). • Drop off centers for household toxics (e.g. Nova Scotia) • Centers for reuse & repair (and retraining) of appliances and furniture etc (e.g. Burlington, Vermont) • Deconstruction -not demolition- of old buildings (e.g. Canberra, Australia) • Residual screening facilities (e.g. Nova Scotia).

  43. The San Francisco Program Robert Haley Recycling Program Manager Department of the Environment City and County of San Francisco

  44. San Francisco • Population = 850,000 • Little space • Education has to be done in three languages • Over 50% diversion reached by 2000 • 63% diversion reached by 2004 • 75% diversion by 2010 (goal) • 100% diversion by 2020 i.e. Zero Waste

  45. The “Fantastic 3”

  46. ALL FOOD SCRAPS, YARD TRIMMINGS AND COMPOSTABLE PAPER GO IN THE GREENCART

  47. ALL BOTTLES, CANS AND RECYCLABLE PAPER GO IN THEBLUE CART

  48. WHAT CAN’T BE RECYCLED OR COMPOSTED GOES IN THE BLACK CART

More Related