Landfills also form leachate, which is contaminated water that can seep into waterways and groundwater supplies. Toxins from leachate can make their way into drinking water.  These toxins include bacteria, dissolved salts, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and pesticides.  Any number of health problems may stem from leachate.  While landfills are a large and growing problem, the waste that typically finds its way to a landfill represents a local opportunity as a source of renewable energy.  Advanced technologies, such as liquid metal gasification, harness the latent energy value from waste. Instead of benefiting from the tipping fees (the price to dump the waste at the landfill) these technologies create a high-quality energy sold to industrial users in place of fossil fuels.

Diverting waste from landfills for higher and better reuse has the potential to benefit communities both economically and environmentally. As the costs of landfilling continue to rise, it is important that we continue to develop technologies that reduce the need for landfills that also create a high value product to re-purpose these waste streams for higher and better use.

Yes, there are technological challenges that serve as obstacles to commercialization, however, it is important that research on converting waste to clean energy continues to grow. Engaging students with hands-on research will help to ensure that we continue to find ways to more efficiently and effectively handle our waste streams and add to our renewable energy sources.  Developments in these types of waste-to-fuel technologies illustrate there are important strides being made to transform the way we traditionally handle waste (landfilling, incineration) to a method that increases our domestic alternative energy portfolio with a low emissions fuel made from a plentiful resource.

Shortly after Rosenthal’s report “Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags,” and the online debate, Norman Steisel, the New York City sanitation commissioner from 1978 to 1986, and Benjamin Miller, the author of “Fat of the Land: Garbage in New York, the Last Two Hundred Years,” and the Sanitation Department’s director of policy planning from 1989 to 1992, wrote an Op/Ed published in the Times “Power from Trash.” Steisel and Miller point out that the exportation of New York City’s garbage has become a serious environmental and economical problem that needs to be addressed. The authors suggest three strategies to be used in conjunction with one another: waste reduction, using trains (as opposed to trucks) to haul waste, and the increased use of waste-to-energy plants for disposal. The article states, “If all of the city’s nonrecycled waste were sent to local energy recovery facilities instead of distant landfills, the city would save diesel fuel and generate enough energy to supply 145,000 homes — thus avoiding the combustion of nearly three million barrels of oil to generate electricity.”

Burying waste is an environmental and economic burden that can be addressed with the adoption of new, advanced technologies.  Technologies that incorporate modern air emissions controls while producing energy offer a way for communities to reduce their environmental footprint. These articles have helped to get the conversation about how to properly manage waste in U.S. started, it’s important we continue it.

In addition to becoming more conscious of the amount of waste we generate and making efforts to cut down on what we’re putting in our trash can, we can use this opportunity to change the way we view waste. Instead of a liability, waste should be seen as a renewable energy resource. When we use waste  as a feedstock in advanced technologies that efficiently convert the waste into a clean form of energy, we significantly reduce our environmental footprint.    Instead of sending waste to a landfill, where the waste decomposes and generates methane gas ,  the waste can be converted to a synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen), a renewable gas that can be used to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Logically, renewable biomass should include things that grow in the ground: wood and wood products, crops, grains, grasses, fruits, veggies, and the like.   However, the politics of renewable energy are complicated and there are a number of competing views on what should be included:

1. Agricultural interests tend to support an inclusive approach – they would love for all their crops, forestry products and by-products to be included
2. Energy industry interests would like to make the definition narrow and specific, allowing a limited level of biomass-fueled electricity, but trying not to displace other fuels in large quantity.
3. Environmental groups have a mixed view – support for greater use of biomass in order to move away from fossil fuels, but a distaste for some components of biomass, like wholesale clearcutting of forest lands for fuel or the burning of  painted or treated wood due to the potentially harmful air emissions.

While the Waxman-Markey Bill settled on one definition of renewable biomass (see below) there are currently 14 definitions floating around in the Senate, stemming from the many definition that exist under Federal law and regulation. For Ze-gen, one of the most important parts of the definition is whether or not construction & demolition debris, and painted & treated wood are included because Ze-gen’s advanced gasification process is well suited for these difficult-to manage materials. The Waxman-Markey definition of renewable biomass includes construction waste, and other waste wood. Similarly, the Boxer/Kerry bill includes construction wood waste, but specifically excludes “painted, treated or pressurized wood, or wood contaminated with plastic or metals”. While the combustion of painted and treated wood may cause harmful air emissions when used in some waste to energy technologies, we believe that the exclusion of this valuable material should be reconsidered given emerging technologies that can safely process these materials.

While clearly defining what “renewable biomass” is an important nuance of any comprehensive energy bill, legislation should not forget to promote new technologies that can convert these materials into useful clean energy, while meeting stringent air emissions guidelines. Technologies like Ze-gen’s liquid metal gasification process are emerging that can properly manage the contaminants typically associated with painted and treated wood, and incentives promoting the use of biomass should consider these new developments. Including all types of waste wood in the definition of renewable biomass serves to increase the Nation’s renewable energy production potential, encourage new technologies that can effectively process these more challenging biomass materials, and help to end the unnecessary landfilling of biomass waste material.

For Reference:

Waxman-Markey Definition of Renewable Biomass

• `(i) Materials, pre-commercial thinnings, or removed invasive species from National Forest System land and public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)), including those that are byproducts of preventive treatments (such as trees, wood, brush, thinnings, chips, and slash), that are removed as part of a federally recognized timber sale, or that are removed to reduce hazardous fuels, to reduce or contain disease or insect infestation, or to restore ecosystem health, and that are–
  • `(I) not from components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, Wilderness Study Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, old growth stands, late-successional stands (except for dead, severely damaged, or badly infested trees), components of the National Landscape Conservation System, National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Designated Primitive Areas, or Wild and Scenic Rivers corridors;
  • `(II) harvested in environmentally sustainable quantities, as determined by the appropriate Federal land manager; and
  • `(III) harvested in accordance with Federal and State law, and applicable land management plans.
  • `(ii) Any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis from non-Federal land or land belonging to an Indian or Indian tribe that is held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, including–
    • `(I) renewable plant material, including–
      • `(aa) feed grains;
      • `(bb) other agricultural commodities;
      • `(cc) other plants and trees; and
      • `(dd) algae; and
• `(II) waste material, including–
  • `(aa) crop residue;
  • `(bb) other vegetative waste material (including wood waste and wood residues);
  • `(cc) animal waste and byproducts (including fats, oils, greases, and manure);
  • `(dd) construction waste;
  • `(ee) food waste and yard waste; and
  • `(ff) the non-fossil biogenic portion of municipal solid waste and construction, demolition, and disaster debris.
  • `(iii) Residues and byproducts from wood, pulp, or paper products facilities.’.

• (b) Reduction- The last sentence of section 211(o)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(7)(D)) is amended to read as follows: `For any calendar year in which the Administrator makes such a reduction, the Administrator shall also reduce the applicable volume of renewable fuel and advanced biofuels requirement established under paragraph (2)(B) by the same volume.’.

A frequent argument that arises when discussing improving recycling rates and reducing landfilling is the concern over whether technologies that beneficially use waste to create energy will serve to deter residents from recycling.  Director of Earth Engineering Center at Columbia University, Nickolas Themelis’s op-ed in the Cape Cod Times points out:

This is simply not true. In [the town of] Sandwich, [Massachusetts] we recycle close to seven types of wastes and send the non-recyclable materials to SEMASS [Covanta's Waste-to-Energy facility in Southern, MA]. In fact, the most environmentally minded nations in the world, such as Denmark and Germany, recycle the most, combust the most, and landfill the least. Earlier this year, the World Economic Forum noted that WTE [Waste-to-Energy] is one of the large-scale technologies that can help communities achieve a low-carbon infrastructure.

While Massachusetts develops the new Solid Waste Master Plan to outline the state’s waste management goals and policies for the next ten years, it is important to consider ways to encourage more innovative approaches to recycling and landfill reduction.  Policy that promotes the beneficial use of a materials is an excellent example of how we can create value out of materials that would otherwise be landfilled.

One notable omission, in our opinion, is gasification.  While Gates does not mention biomass gasification or biofuels as part of the big five, it remains an important part of the energy solution. Biomass gasification is considered carbon neutral because the CO2 is biogenic in origin and sequestered as new trees and plants regrow.   Yes, biomass gasification faces some obstacles in widespread commercialization like Gates mentioned, however, it offers significant advantages as it is a reliable source of energy that does not require large scale capital investment or face intermittent production challenges.

The initiation of the solicitation process represents a significant step forward for the sustainability of renewable energy development and generation in Massachusetts. The ability to sign long-term contracts provides renewable energy projects with increased financial certainty, and therefore, helps to increase the project’s ability to attract investors. For example, when Ze-gen begins to commercialize our process, in order to finance the construction and operation of the facility,  a long-term power purchase agreement will help to make the financing much more attractive. This is true not just for Ze-gen, but for other alternative energy developers, such as solar and wind projects as well, which means these contracts will help to further diversify and increase the State’s energy portfolio.  Helping to ensure financial certainty for renewable energy projects will go a long way toward Massachusetts to fulfill its energy goals.

What is waste, really? At a distance, it is something for which no one has any use. But look much closer and you see that waste really is a collection of basic elements. By simple example, wood is made up of a combination of organic polymers and bio-polymers consisting of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. The plastic surrounding my computer is a bit more complicated, but I am told it is comprised of polycarbonates that are derived from hydrogen and carbon.  Clearly, we have a need for carbon—wars have been fought over it. And as the most abundant element in the Universe, hydrogen has hundreds of commercial uses. My point here is that in India and elsewhere, if we start to think of waste as basic elements that can be reorganized into something useful, then it’s very easy to see how over time, waste streams can become assets rather than liabilities.

At least three things need to occur in India in order to make this happen and none are insurmountable.

1. Government needs to put a price on waste. This is happening elsewhere in the world, most notably in UK, where landfilling is strongly discouraged through progressive landfill avoidance taxes. Such an approach encourages less generation of waste, but more importantly it creates economic incentives for the creation of advanced, non-incineration technologies that convert waste into basic chemical elements.
2. With the economic driver outlined above, advanced technologies will quickly come to market which are capable of converting materials which otherwise get landfilled into a synthesis gas which can function as a sustainable building block to energy generation, manufacturing of consumer products, chemicals, and so on. Key to this will be early adoption by industry leaders. Why? Because in many cases Industry controls its own waste streams, and these can be more easily amassed than municipal waste streams. Further, leading industrial players are already beginning to develop strategies for reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions in anticipation of a world that is becoming increasingly carbon-constrained.
3. Environmental groups need to advocate for technology solutions in addition to traditional approaches of encouraging abstinence. In the past, this has been problematic because the only technology available was incineration. Today there are many new non-incineration technologies, which operate on different economic models, plant sizes, and with more flexibility with respect to end product.

To be sure, this isn’t easy. India is challenged by municipal waste material of lower Btu value than other countries. It also has a deeply entrenched segment of its population that derives its livelihood from waste. This doesn’t need to be an obstacle. The efficiency and skills of rag pickers can be combined with technology, to create a new and higher class of jobs geared around the transformation of India’s burgeoning waste problem into a national asset.

So while no one likes to think about waste, maybe this is the exact moment in time to think about waste in an entirely new way.

Roughly half of the air emissions from landfills come from methane, a greenhouse gas that is 22-times more harmful than carbon dioxide.  In the U.S. alone, methane from landfills leads to 125 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year, one of the largest man-made sources of methane emissions.  This problem is compounded by the other environmental problems that landfilling helps create: groundwater pollution, odor, rodents, disease, and urban blight.  So the need to reduce the impact of landfills is real and needs attention.

Appropriately, the environmental community has consistently advocated for using a three “R” hierarchy when it comes with minimizing and managing waste:

• Reduce >>> Anyone that has recently bought a toy, a cell phone, a container of pre-washed lettuce, or anything that arrives in a box cannot help but notice the extra waste bound up in the wrapping and packaging, much of which ends up in a landfill.  In fact, product packaging accounts for about 1/3 of all consumer trash thrown away in the U.S.
• Re-use >>> While slightly less desirable than reducing waste outright, re-using things we already own is the next step.  We  reuse shopping bags, food containers, and zip-lock bags. We reuse plastic bottles when we are desperate.  Yet many people struggle to expand the list. Do left overs count? The propane tank? Even with the best intentions, much of what we buy isn’t designed for re-use which presents a challenge.
• Re-cycle >>> Even though recycling is at the bottom of the desired hierarchy, it seems to get the most attention, and by many measures has been the most successful. In the U.S. we recycle about 33% of our waste and everyone in the supply chain, from producers to consumers, has a heightened sense of awareness about the benefits of recycling.

The current thinking on sustainability dictates that as long as we are making progress toward increasing the three ‘R’s in everything we do, we will reduce landfill waste.  However, this approach has one inconvenient truth – while the rate of recycling increases every year, curiously, so too does the overall amount of waste going to landfills.

How is this possible?  The simple answer is that there are more people, and more people translate into more waste. A more complete answer is that our myopic focus on recycling obscures the economy’s strong motivation to produce and sell more products.  So while consumers of goods get marginally better at putting everything in the proper recycle bin, producers of goods — everything from patio furniture to children’s apparel — have a strong economic motivation to sell more stuff. Winning the volume war almost always means sacrificing quality in favor of low cost.  When producers of goods compete on price, the consumer wins by getting low-cost goods, yet lose because low-cost/low-quality goods tend to quickly fall apart and end up in a landfill. So, we are all losing from a climate-change perspective when you consider the carbon life-cycle of the goods we buy.

Given this predicament, we must rethink how we manage waste.  It seems appropriate to question whether our current system of waste resolution is the best we can do. We can and will do better, but not without some profound changes.  Here are three simple ideas:

1. For Consumers – buy less stuff and insist on higher quality. In doing so, you will exert pressure on manufacturers to produce better quality materials which will actually cost you less in the long run. If you cannot afford to buy something that will last, consider saving for it until you can afford it.
2. For Producers – design and manufacture products with the end in mind, as if you were going to be responsible for the final resting place of your products. If for no other reason, this may soon be the case.
3. For Environmentalists – waste began as a pollution problem. Now it is a climate change problem as well.  This requires a new framework of collaborative thinking, as well as incentives and penalties in order to bring about more effective results.  Consider advocating for more producer responsibilities at the front end to combat the waste creation problem and encouraging development of advanced technologies at the back end to minimize the disposal problem.

As with everything else involving climate change, this isn’t going to be an easy problem to solve. Certainly not with more of the same thinking that got us here. The problem with waste, as Edward McBride of The Economist recently noted, is that by definition no one wants to think about it.

In our view, this is exactly the moment we must think about it.