By Andy Pearson
Skip to [ Story Content and jump story attachments ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Most Read
Comments
Latest
Advertisement
Advertisement
Main Page Content:
Too good to waste
December 2009
Has the time come to accept waste-to-energy projects as a valuable part of a sustainable waste management solution?
Waste incineration, which dominates the UK sector, is hugely unpopular with the public and environment campaigners. However, new, cleaner technologies that can turn rubbish into electricity and heat have fuelled interest, as we report on page 35.
The logic is simple: rather than burying waste, it is burnt to produce energy that would otherwise have to be generated by fossil fuels. As well as cutting the use of high-carbon fuels, such schemes divert waste from landfill.
Public concern over the health impacts of burning waste means waste-to-energy technologies have yet to find favour with developers. Critics also claim that they reduce recycling because they compete for the same rubbish as the recycling centres. No matter how efficient the waste-to-energy plant, reusing or recycling materials will always save more energy than could be generated by burning them.
The best solution, of course, is not to produce any waste in the first place. Some environmentalists argue that banning landfill and incinerators would compel us all to recycle and compost. However, it would take a very brave developer to put its efforts into creating an infrastructure that promotes zero waste and the reuse of resources in the community.
In reality, recovering energy from waste that cannot be recycled is a sound environmental objective. Provided developers can overcome nimbyism, wasteto- energy technology has the potential to help significantly reduce a scheme’s waste output as well as contributing to its energy mix.
AND FINALLY…
This is the last issue of Building Sustainable Design. After almost a year of trying to succeed in a difficult commercial climate, BSD is to cease publication.
A sustainable built environment is as important now as when BSD was launched 11 issues ago, and its publisher UBM will continue to serve forward-thinking designers through our sister magazine Building. Its website, www.building.co.uk, will include an archive of the editorial content of BSD.
All that remains is for me to say a big thank-you to all who contributed to this magazine in its short life: in particular, everyone on the editorial panel and the next generation panel who gave their time so generously; the advertisers for their support; and most of all you, the readers, for your feedback and encouragement. I hope BSD has kept you informed and entertained. Any enquiries should be addressed to vikki.mcleod@ubm.com.
 Get the latest stories first with BSD newsletters. Click to signup |
||
|
RSS  |
||
Readers' comments
Andy I am really saddened to hear that the magazine is closing. Both as a reader and a former contributor and a CIBSE member I have enjoyed the last 11 months of BSD. The competition between BSD and CIBSE Journal was undoubtedly healthy (in quality terms) but no doubt contributed to the demise in these incredibly harsh economic terms. You have done a great job on the BSJ and BSD and I thank you, and your select team, for the insight (and controversy) that your mag has contributed to the industry. Best of luck in your new world Regards, Tim Dwyer
Andy, as a loyal reader of BSD and formerly BSJ I am sorry to hear that the difficult economy has forced you to cease publication. While I represent a large multi-national AE firm in the US I regularly looked to BSD for articles and information in the European market that may be applicable in the US. I hope that as the economy improves you will once again be able resurrect the magazine.
Apart from expressing my regret at the decease of BSD (hopefully like Dracula it can rise again -perhaps Lazarus would have been a better metaphor) can I comment that some technologies (e.g. anaerobic digestion) do allow you to get energy from waste and still return nutrients to the environment
In what way is waste-to-energy via incineration a low carbon fuel (you say that it cuts the use of high carbon fuels). Electricity generation by these plants is inefficient, burns plastic (a high carbon fossil fuel), and food waste is rapidly being diverted to in-vessel composting and anaerobic digestion. I heard recently an informed observation that incinerators destroy the reclaimed wood market. The waste industry will talk about combined heat and power improving the carbon performance of incinerators, but it hardly ever happens. There is lots to know about the carbon intensity of the various waste treatment options, and it is dangerous to make 'common sense' assumptions.
Steve, in comparison with putting the waste into landfill (fortunately decreasing) -where it is lost as a potential source of energy or chemical content -and rots emitting often uncollected methane EfW is sensible. BUT I do take your point that anything reclaimable needs to be extracted first and that the heat produced does need to be used properly as well as any electricity generated