I don't know anyone who thinks landfill is a good idea, yet it is one of the most widely used ways of disposing of waste. Every city in the world seems to have one. I'm sure there are a few places that don't and would definitely be interested to find out where these cities are and what they do instead.
Yet despite this common dislike, very few people understand the perils beyond; "They stink!" or "I don't want to live near one!". They don't want to live near one, probably because they stink and maybe because of all the trucks taking garbage to the dump.
Most of the big companies that operate them definitely don't want the public to know the problems associated with them. Some of them are multi-billion dollar corporations and their business models would be irreparably damaged if they were not allowed to landfill, which is what would happen if people really understood the truth about landfills. However some of the more enlightened ones are looking at alternatives. Most of the alternatives involve incineration and using the heat to drive turbines to generate electricity. Incineration has its own set of problems and destroys the resource molecules so they are lost forever.
The first thing you should know is that even where there is rigorous recycling, more than 30% of what we throw out ends up in landfill. More likely its closer to 60%. These numbers rise when commodity prices are low, like now, and it becomes too costly to recycle much of what is collected.
All cities could do a better job of recycling, but we need to change their paradigm about recycling and what it is. See my blog What is Recycling at the Molecular Level? This way resource molecules can be reused many times over.
The reason why landfill smells is largely because of the bacteria in waste that cause decomposition. We all know what rotting food smells like and its only one of the components. These smells are carried into the air with the gas that escapes from landfill. This decomposition is slowed by the lack of oxygen in the landfill and it results in a combination of biological processes, physical processes and chemical process that may take more than 150 years to break down all the materials in a landfill. Until that happens gas builds up and leaks out of even the best managed landfills.
There is a lot of talk these days and some action around tapping landfills for the methane gas they produce. The idea is to capture it and use it to produce electricity or to use as a natural gas substitute. This definitely works, but is one of those ideas that work better in theory than in practice. Landfills by their nature are not completely gas tight, so as much as 50% of the methane produced simply escapes into the atmosphere. This is a big problem if you are a believer in the climate changing effects of green house gases (GHG)from landfill. Methane is 21 times more powerful than CO2 as a GHG. Methane is light and rapidly dissipates into the atmosphere.
Municipal waste is the most non-homogeneous substance known to man. The problem is that we throw anything undesirable into the garbage. Apart from plastic, paper glass and metals, we throw rotting food, dirty diapers, dog poop, soiled tampons, paper towel used to clear up everything from gravy spills to vomit etc. I could go on, but you get the point.
Much of this stuff is laden with bacteria. The bacteria spreads and grows in the warm moist environment,further breaking down whatever it can thrive on. This in turn generates liquids, some of which can be very toxic and they can leak out as leachate. Leachate can contaminate the ground water and must be monitored on a very regular basis with wells in the nearby country side. We've got better at preventing ground water contamination, but why take the chance.
In some countries landfill fires are a problem. These fires fill the air with toxic smoke and the ash may also mix with the leachate, causing further problems if it is toxic. This doesn't often happen in North America, but it doesn't mean it cant.
We need to begin to push back against new landfills and embrace emerging technologies that offer the promise of zero landfill. The big companies that operate landfills make a fortune from this archaic and unpleasant practice and it is not in their best interests to change their business model.
Showing posts with label landfill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label landfill. Show all posts
Monday, August 17, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
What is recycling at the molecular level?
We owe the quality of our lives to our ability take resources and turn them into products we need.
The products we need are then used or consumed and what we don't want is thrown out.
What we throw out goes to be recycled or land filled.
Less than 50 % of what we dispose of is recycled, the rest is dumped in landfill for future generations to worry about.
Most of us acknowledge that landfills are a necessary evil, what we don't question much are the alternatives to landfill.
The way we handle waste today assumes waste is a liability.
What if we were to assume that waste is a valuable distributed energy resource? It in fact contains, on a ton for ton basis, about 50% of the energy of coal.
How would we handle it then?
It would become clear that disposal is the lowest level of use for a resource. Incineration is little better. Granted, we can use the energy we generate to fire kilns or create steam for generators, but in reality this is very low level recovery.
We can improve our ability to recycle and I think this is happening all the time, but much of what goes to land fill is beyond recycling as it is currently done. It is a mixture of a wide range of materials, some of it rotting and odorous, much of it is moist and each component contaminates the other components. So what do we do with this stuff?
We tend to think of recycling at a product level. Paper is recyclable, metal is recyclable, glass is recyclable and so are plastics. But what if we look at this material at the molecular level?
Much of what goes to landfill has high levels of carbon. Items such as organics, paper, plastics fibres, carpeting, wood rubber and even asphalt shingles all contain carbon along with hydrogen and oxygen. These elements are bound together in a variety of complex compounds often containing other elements as well.
But instead of thinking about this material at a product level, what if we viewed it at the molecular level? We'd see that it contains valuable energy and compounds which can be transformed into other valuable resources.
We can take this material, vaporize it so it breaks down to its basic molecules. Once we've done this, we can produce what is known as syngas. Syngas is a combination of carbon monoxide and hydrogen and these two components can be used to make a wide variety of valuable fuels and chemical feed stocks. These can either be used as fuels or used as resources to make other useful products.
This is recycling at the molecular level.
It assumes waste has value and in fact enables us to put a value on municipal solid waste. If one takes into account what can be made and sold from MSW, a rough back of the envelope calculation shows that each ton of garbage may be worth around $300 a ton. This technology exists, is available and will become the norm sometime in the near future. More can be learned about this process at www.alternativefuelscorp.com
If that's the case, what we dump in landfill in North America each year may be worth upwards of $70 billion.
Do we want to keep burying it in a hole in the ground or do we want to turn it into something useful, thereby cleaning up the environment, reducing methane escape into the atmosphere and eventually getting rid of landfill altogether?
The products we need are then used or consumed and what we don't want is thrown out.
What we throw out goes to be recycled or land filled.
Less than 50 % of what we dispose of is recycled, the rest is dumped in landfill for future generations to worry about.Most of us acknowledge that landfills are a necessary evil, what we don't question much are the alternatives to landfill.
The way we handle waste today assumes waste is a liability.
What if we were to assume that waste is a valuable distributed energy resource? It in fact contains, on a ton for ton basis, about 50% of the energy of coal.
How would we handle it then?
It would become clear that disposal is the lowest level of use for a resource. Incineration is little better. Granted, we can use the energy we generate to fire kilns or create steam for generators, but in reality this is very low level recovery.
We can improve our ability to recycle and I think this is happening all the time, but much of what goes to land fill is beyond recycling as it is currently done. It is a mixture of a wide range of materials, some of it rotting and odorous, much of it is moist and each component contaminates the other components. So what do we do with this stuff?
We tend to think of recycling at a product level. Paper is recyclable, metal is recyclable, glass is recyclable and so are plastics. But what if we look at this material at the molecular level?
Much of what goes to landfill has high levels of carbon. Items such as organics, paper, plastics fibres, carpeting, wood rubber and even asphalt shingles all contain carbon along with hydrogen and oxygen. These elements are bound together in a variety of complex compounds often containing other elements as well.
But instead of thinking about this material at a product level, what if we viewed it at the molecular level? We'd see that it contains valuable energy and compounds which can be transformed into other valuable resources.
We can take this material, vaporize it so it breaks down to its basic molecules. Once we've done this, we can produce what is known as syngas. Syngas is a combination of carbon monoxide and hydrogen and these two components can be used to make a wide variety of valuable fuels and chemical feed stocks. These can either be used as fuels or used as resources to make other useful products.
This is recycling at the molecular level.
It assumes waste has value and in fact enables us to put a value on municipal solid waste. If one takes into account what can be made and sold from MSW, a rough back of the envelope calculation shows that each ton of garbage may be worth around $300 a ton. This technology exists, is available and will become the norm sometime in the near future. More can be learned about this process at www.alternativefuelscorp.com
If that's the case, what we dump in landfill in North America each year may be worth upwards of $70 billion.
Do we want to keep burying it in a hole in the ground or do we want to turn it into something useful, thereby cleaning up the environment, reducing methane escape into the atmosphere and eventually getting rid of landfill altogether?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Just how much energy is there in the waste we send to landfill?
We have to see waste, not as a liability to be disposed of as expediently as possible but as a domestic distributed source of energy. Once we achieve this, we can put up plants that are capable of transforming this waste into valuable forms of energy, such as electricity, fuels and chemical feedstocks, close to the supply of waste. What ever is needed in a particular market can then determine what each plant should be producing.
As citizens we need to demand that our local governments no longer send waste to landfill. This should be a last resort, not the default that it currently is. Most of them wont act until they have no way of avoiding it.
- Estimates vary but somewhere between 1 and 2 billion tonnes of waste go to landfill each year in North America
- Landfill is our biggest single source of greenhouse gas. 37% of the methane generated in North America is generated by landfill.
- Methane is 21 times as powerful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas
- Each ton of solid waste contains about 50% of the energy contained in a ton of coal
- Only about 2% of the energy in waste sent to landfill is captured and used
We have to see waste, not as a liability to be disposed of as expediently as possible but as a domestic distributed source of energy. Once we achieve this, we can put up plants that are capable of transforming this waste into valuable forms of energy, such as electricity, fuels and chemical feedstocks, close to the supply of waste. What ever is needed in a particular market can then determine what each plant should be producing.
As citizens we need to demand that our local governments no longer send waste to landfill. This should be a last resort, not the default that it currently is. Most of them wont act until they have no way of avoiding it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
