Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Le 1

Nora Le
Professor Dubey
Writing 39C
18 May 2014
A Breath of Fresh Air: A Solution to the Landfill Emission Crisis
Approximately 4.3 pounds of waste per day are generated by the average United States
citizen. This means that there are 220 million tons of waste generated each year in the United
States, and according to Duke University in
North Carolina, 55% of these 220 million tons
ends up in one of 3,500 landfills nationwide.
According to the graph on the left, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency reports
that 18% of the nations methane emissions
comes from landfills each year, and as these
landfills increase in size year after year, the rate
of decomposition cannot keep up with the
amount waste that is being added. This is a
problem that affects not only people living close
to landfills sites, but everyone in the nation, as well as future generations. Not only does the
accumulating waste make the surrounding cities look unattractive and therefore lower the cost of
living in a home nearby, pungent odors and health defects have also been reported. As the
Le 2

nations greenhouse gases continue to accumulate, they erode the atmosphere, and there will
come a day when it is too late to try to fix the damage that has occurred.
To understand how much the problem of landfills has grown, the history of the United
States first landfill must be revisited. The Fresno Municipal Landfill was opened in Fresno,
California in 1937. The landfill is approximately 140 acres, roughly 106 American football
fields. The landfill was closed in 1989, but the California Department of Health Services had
reported that methane gas had spread to surrounding areas and also that contaminated
groundwater had run off into private residential wells (EPA). The landfill still continues to be a
problem today, however. The decomposition of common waste items, from plastic bags to glass
bottles, can range from a couple months to a million years. This also varies depending on how
exposed to air the waste is, and the deeper the object is buried beneath the landfill the longer it
takes for it to decompose.
The problem addressed during the creation of landfills was where to put the growing
waste, but now the problem is how much landfill emissions are being produced and what is
going to be done about it. Brian Palmer, a writer for Slate, writes about the landfill emissions
produced each time a state has their wastes transported to an out-of-state landfill. He also writes
that even though the amount of landfills are starting to minimize, the remaining ones are growing
in size. Though it would produce less emission sending waste to an in-state landfill, the more
populated states are wanting to keep landfills out of their state limits. A proposed solution to the
landfill gas emissions would be to open more gas to energy facilities throughout the United
States using the process of converting methane to electricity by mass incineration, plasma
gasification, or pyrolysis.
Le 3

The Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), proposed by the EPA, is a voluntary
program that creates partnerships among states, energy users/providers, the landfill gas (LFG)
industry, and communities. It was started in 1994 and its mission is to promote the creation of
LFG energy projects that would generate the most lasting impact for the amount of money spent.
For every 1 million tons of MSW, ~0.78 megawatts (MW) of electricity [is produced].
Companies across the nation have been working into this idea and USA Today reports that
landfill projects have been on the rise and California has been the leading landfill to energy
proponent with seventy-three operating landfill projects since 2010.
The S. 1627 American Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act is an act that goes hand in
hand with the Landfill Methane Outreach Program and it states that a set amount of renewable
energy must be sold by each retail energy supplier in the United States. The sponsor of the act is
Ed Markey, a junior senator from the Massachusetts, and it was proposed on October 31, 2013.
The act itself encourages the use of modern, cost-effective renewable energy and energy
efficiency technologies. The bill proposes that 25% of the power from utilities must come from
renewable sources. The Landfill Methane Outreach Program creates the connection between
states, businesses, the LFG industry and community, and the S. 1627 American Renewable
Energy and Efficiency Act furthers the connection by requiring a set amount of energy that must
come from renewable sources. If the utilities refuse to meet the quota, they will be forced to pay
a fine. Though the act does not require the energy to come specifically from landfill emissions, it
still provides for an outlet that methane to energy can be funneled into. Landfill gas is one of the
nine renewable energy sources, ranging from wind energy to hydropower to geothermal energy,
which the act enforces utilities to use.
Le 4

With landfill projects slowly rising, opportunities for more jobs appear as well. The
traditional process of converting gas to energy is called mass incineration and it begins with the
collection of emissions, after the waste has been burned at very high temperatures. The heat from
the waste is then used in a boiler that in turn creates steam. The steam runs through turbines that
then create the energy that produces the energy we use. QED Environmental Systems, Inc.
reports that 1,000,000 tons of trash will provide energy for approximately 3,000 homes.
However, there has been a debate
between the process of mass
incineration and plasma gasification.
The picture on the left shows the
process of plasma gasification.The new
age process of plasma gasification
occurs by using plasma, an ionized gas
which, to break down wastes into
smaller molecules. The carbon-based
molecules become gases which can be
used as energy. The difference between
incineration and the process of plasma gasification is the use of oxidation, or rather, burning.
Both processes have horrible, negative effects to the environment, and many critics advocate a
Zero Waste no burn solution. The critics want to fix the problem by recycling more and
reducing waste. While this strategy may attack and prevent future problems, the existing problem
still persists. However, allowing the landfill methane emissions to leak into the atmosphere
Le 5

without any outcome of it, is an even worse decision. At least if the gas is converted, we will be
able to use the energy in a more efficient manner to power many homes.
As stated before both plasma gasification and mass incineration are bad for the
environment, however it has been shown that plasma gasification has significantly less
consequences and requires less resources to function than mass incineration. Incineration
requires combustion which in turn produces two kinds of ash, Bottom Ash and Fly Ash, which
both need to be treated, as well as the toxic gases that are emitted from mass burning all the
waste. Plasma gasification also creates a negative product called slag in the process. However,
according to the Gasification Technologies Council, this slag can be used to create cement,
roofing shingles or be used as an asphalt filler. Randy Leonard writes for the New York Times in
the article Plasma Gasification Raises Hopes of Clean Energy From Garbage that the plasma
gasification process can even destroy medical waste, polychlorinated biphenyls (which can cause
cancer), asbestos and hydrocarbons. As opposed to mass incineration, plasma gasification is
generally a lot cleaner, is more efficient and uses less resources. Sun Energy Group states that
disposing one ton of trash will produce 55.2 kilowatts of power. Mass incineration produces
ashes and even requires fossil fuels to work. Plasma gasification plants general start by taking
electricity from the source, but after they start running, and depending on the waste that is being
broken down, these plants are self-sustaining. Plasma gasification plants require little to no
oxygen in contrast to a mass incinerator, which in turn produces less dioxins in the air, which are
toxic compounds that act as environmental pollutants.
Even though plasma gasification is an overall better process of converting gas to energy
than mass incineration, it costs an extensive amount of money to build these plants. Of course it
is cheaper to keep burying the waste and letting it pile up rather than to build numerous plasma
Le 6

gasification plants across the United States because it costs about $250 million to build a plasma
gasification plant that processes 2,000 tons of waste a day. An article discussing the pros and
cons of plasma gasification, written by Brendan Koerner for Slate, an online news website, states
that there is no cost benefit, even after selling the electricity that would be produced. Landfills
even charge municipalities a certain amount ranging from $35 to $90 per ton of waste
transported to a plasma gasification plant. This solution may not be cost-friendly, but it still
reduces the overall methane emissions that leaking into the air. It is still better than having it leak
out into the open atmosphere. Critics also argue that the dioxins, furans, mercury and other heavy
metals are not worth releasing into the atmosphere at the cost of producing energy. These critics
also state that plasma gasification and mass incineration are very similar processes, saying that
both methods involve combustion. While that certainly is true for mass incineration, the process
of plasma gasification is entirely different. The critics mistake the heating of the waste as being
burned, but when in fact, it is simply being broken down at extremely high temperatures,
temperatures as high 10,000 F, and that is why it is called plasma gasification because plasma is
found in extreme heat sources such as lightning and on the face of the sun.
The Landfill Methane Outreach Program and Ed Markeys S. 1627 American Renewable
Energy and Efficiency Act should still be supported because as more gas to energy facilities are
built more jobs will be available across the nation. The EPA reports that a typical three megawatt
landfill gas electricity project will ultimately increase the output of the national economy by
approximately $14 million and employ 70 people in a single facility. As of 2009, there are 485
operational projects in 44 states that produce 12 billion kilowatt-hours of energy. The
Environmental Defense Fund commission ICF International to perform a cost analysis of the
amount of methane that could be reduced if more gas to energy facilities were constructed. It
Le 7

reported that by 2018 methane emissions could be cut by 40% at a cost of less than one cent per
thousand cubic feet of produced natural gas. The reason this is not being funded is because there
does not seem to be awareness in communities and across the nation. People do not realize that
the waste they produce every day ends up in a landfill, piling on top of waste they produced
yesterday or the week before. People turn a blind eye to problems if they cannot see how bad it
really is.
More landfill gas to energy facilities must be built because of the sheer amount of
landfills that are spread across the nation. Europe is ahead of the United States in waste to energy
production, especially Denmark. Elisabeth Rosenthal writes for the New York Times and reported
that as of 2010, Denmark, a country of 5.5 million people, has 29 waste to energy plants with ten
more on the way, as well. The United States is lacking in comparison, with only 87 trash-burning
power plants for a country with a population of 300 million people. Even with a significantly
smaller population than the United States, Denmark is able to strive to keep a minimal amount of
waste from going to landfills. With 54% of their waste incinerated, 42% recycled and 4% going
to landfills, Denmark is a good example of a country striving for zero waste policy. The United
States, on the other hand, has 13% of waste incinerated, 33% recycled, and 54% going to
landfills. The problem lies within the attitude of the citizens within each country. Citizens of the
United States do not really consider zero waste to be a priority, except in certain cities such as
San Francisco, or New York City. The United States sheer size and mass of people from all
different backgrounds and lifestyles makes it hard to strive for a certain policy, in this case zero
waste. If more landfill to gas energy facilities were built, a movement would be born as people
begin to be informed of how important reducing waste is.
Le 8

Many organizations, such as Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) or Zero
Waste Alliance, advocate environment friendly ways to reduce waste and avoid landfill
incinerations. As stated before, these solutions will only prevent further enlargement of landfill
sites. What is done is done. The United States should strive to reduce, reuse and recycle more,
however, supporting the Landfill Methane Outreach Program and the S. 1627 American
Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act will allow the current landfill methane emissions to be
greatly reduced while still supplying energy to homes across the United States. As costly as it is
to construct more plasma gasification plants, in the long run, the United States will benefit with
more renewable energy from the 3,500 decomposing landfills nationwide.
Ultimately, to reduce overall methane emissions in the United States, the solution would
be to build more gas to energy facilities nationwide. Specifically, these facilities should be
geared towards plasma gasification, as it is a better, more efficient way to break down the waste
into easily managed gas without use of combustion and production of ash and other harsh
chemicals that mass incineration comes with. The Landfill Methane Outreach Program should be
supported as it deals with making connections with states, the landfill gas industry and
communities. The program breaks down any barriers that could potentially come up when
making methane gas reduction an awareness. Massachusetts Junior Senator Ed Markeys S.
1627 American Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act would also help make the use of landfill
gas as an energy source a standard among utility distributors and municipalities. As of right now,
the act has a 1% chance of being enacted. There is currently a petition for it online that should be
supported by everyone. The act should be passed, however, because it will create jobs across the
nation by creating a need for more gas to energy facilities.
Le 9

Of course the solution to decrease the nations landfill methane emissions would benefit
by a zero waste policy. Citizens need to be informed that the methane emissions are a huge
problem as they are a terrible greenhouse gas. Plasma gasification would help the current amount
of methane gas in the atmosphere, but to preserve the United States and keep the country more
sustainable, everyone needs to reduce their wastes, recycle and reuse anything possible. As a
country, we should strive to be more like Denmark. If we continue to ignore the problem for
what it is, it will build up into something that cannot be controlled in the future. While that may
be a pessimistic look at things, it is certainly a wake-up call to every citizen in the United States
because this not only affects us now, but our future generations as well.











Le 10

Works Cited
Dodge, Ed. "Plasma Gasification: Clean Renewable Fuel through Vaporization of Waste." -
Waste
Management World. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 June 2014. <http://www.waste-management-
world.com/articles/print/volume-10/issue-4/features/plasma-gasification-clean-
renewable-fuel-
through-vaporization-of-waste.html>.
"GAIA : Zero Waste for Zero Warming Campaign." GAIA : Zero Waste for Zero Warming
Campaign. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 04 June 2014. <http://www.no-burn.org/article.php?list=type&type=91>.
Soghoian, Adrian. "Plasma Gasification: A Solution to the Waste Disposal Dilemma? State of
the
Planet." Plasma Gasification: A Solution to the Waste Disposal Dilemma? State of The
Planet:
Blogs From the Earth Institute, 7 Aug. 2009. Web. 04 June 2014.
<http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2009/07/08/plasma-gasification-a-solution-to-the-waste-
disposal-dilemma/>.
"Methane: The Other Important Greenhouse Gas." Environmental Defense Fund. N.p., n.d. Web.
02 June
2014. <http://www.edf.org/climate/methane>.
Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Europe Finds Clean Fuel in Trash; U.S. Sits Back." The New York Times.
The New
York Times, 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 02 June 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?pagewanted=all>.

Вам также может понравиться