Burners may have edge as Metro mulls waste options
 |
|||
|
The option of building incinerators to turn more trash into energy remains a strong contender as Metro Vancouver weighs the pros and cons of eight different scenarios to deal with the region's looming garbage glut.
The controversial idea is opposed by some environmental groups and air quality defenders in the Fraser Valley, who fear increased air pollution from waste-to-energy plants and a reduced emphasis on recycling.
But twin reports for Metro by consultant AECOM Canada suggest building a large new waste-fired plant would actually generate the lowest levels of most local air contaminants.
The findings also suggest a big incinerator would be the least costly one to taxpayers, would generate the most electricity and could also capture a tremendous amount of heat that could be piped to neighbouring buildings, offsetting their energy needs.
The region needs a new way to dispose of the 500,000 tonnes of trash a year that now goes to the Cache Creek landfill, slated to close in late 2010.
Metro hopes to get provincial permission to export garbage to the U.S. for five years while it builds new facilities to handle waste.
The options studied were:
- A large waste-to-energy (WTE) plant handling 750,000 tonnes of waste per year.
- A mid-sized WTE plant taking 500,000 tonnes a year, with more waste being landfilled.
- Building a mid-sized WTE plant, but outside the Lower Mainland.
- Construction of a 500,000-tonne mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) plant that would process part of the waste for fuel and shred the rest, allowing it to be landfilled more safely with fewer emissions. The refuse-derived fuel may be burned in the region by local cement plants.
- An MBT plant as described above, but with the refuse-derived fuel being used outside the region.
- An MBT plant that processes all waste for disposal at the Vancouver Landfill, without turning any of it into fuel.
- Maximize local landfilling by dumping 750,000 tonnes a year at the Vancouver Landfill in Delta and building a new bioreactor landfill outside Metro Vancouver to handle the rest.
- Maximize out-of-region landfilling by reducing use of the Vancouver Landfill to 230,000 tonnes a year and trucking the rest to a new bioreactor landfill to be built outside the region.
So far Metro isn't shortlisting the options before it.
"Each of the eight has advantages and disadvantages," said Metro Vancouver waste management committee chair Marvin Hunt.
 Helen Spiegelman of Zero Waste Vancouver says Metro Vancouver shouldn't rush to build waste-to-energy plants.
|
But he said it's clear some options are more likely than others.
Hunt said building new landfills may be difficult – Metro struggled 10 years to build a replacement for Cache Creek before giving up.
By far the costliest scenario – at more than $70 per tonne – would be the MBT plant with all processed waste being landfilled, compared to less than $30 per tonne for a big incinerator.
Hunt said the high cost of that option make it a long shot, along with the fact it would produce no fuel or additional energy.
But Helen Spiegelman of Zero Waste Vancouver said that option may actually be the greenest.
The MBT plant with all waste landfilled would have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions by far, the report shows.
And Spiegelman said a high cost per tonne may be beneficial, because it would drive the region to recycle more and create less waste in the first place.
"Unlike all those other scenarios it can be ramped down over time," she said, adding any private partner that builds an incinerator for Metro will insist on a guaranteed, stable stream of waste.
"You build the burners, you've got to feed 'em," Spiegelman said.
Waste-to-energy plants would be costly to build – $470 million to $700 million – but cheap to operate, due to the value of the electricity and heat produced.
Vancouver Coun. Heather Deal wants all the reports examined in detail before the board decides to move forward, particularly the findings that impacts on air quality would be negligible.
"Air emissions is a huge concern," she said.
Metro's board will consider the issues again at meetings in late June.
After that it's expected the eight scenarios studied will be winnowed down over the summer and recommendations will come back to the board in September.
The region would still have to refine what technology it wants to use, choose a provider and then get it built.
Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini, Metro's environment committee chair, said he also sees the findings pointing towards waste-to-energy and away from landfilling.
He said he's happy the reports lay out the facts, but fears science will take a back seat to politics.
He suspects the provincial government, which has final say over Metro Vancouver's next solid waste management plan, will make its calculations based more on public opinion and may well dictate Metro pursue a course that's illogical but popular.
"Politics has guided decisions for the last two to five years on this," he said.
The Tekniska Verken waste-to-energy plant in the Swedish city of Linkoping incinerates 400,000 tonnes of waste per year to produce 1,000 gigawatt-hours of power. It's billed as the country's most advanced waste-fired plant.
Valley air pollution impacts negligible: report
Air pollution in the lower Fraser Valley would be no worse than it is today, whether Metro Vancouver burns its garbage in incinerators or hauls it away to distant landfills.
That's the result of a consultant's study of air quality impacts attributed to each of eight scenarios studied for future waste disposal.
The report by RWDI Air Inc. found Metro Vancouver's waste now accounts for just 0.1 to 1.2 per cent of air contaminant levels in the lower Fraser Valley.
It found that those levels would be lower still by 2020 – no matter which waste technology Metro chooses – for particulate, nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides.
The report forecasts slightly higher levels of ammonia, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for some of the waste options modeled.
In general, the findings show a technology called mechanical-biological treatment (where waste is processed for more eco-friendly landfilling or to produce refuse-derived fuel for industry) resulted in slightly higher levels of several air contaminants than other options.
A large waste incinerator resulted in the lowest projected air contaminant levels, at or below current readings for all seven types of contaminants.
The differences of the findings between the different technologies is not great, said Metro air quality planning manager Roger Quan.
"It will be less than or comparable to present day," he said, adding the impact waste handling has on air quality is small.
Future air quality in the region will be much more dependent on further improvements in vehicle emissions, Quan said.
Any move to cleaner marine fuels – ships continue to use higher sulphur fuel and account for a growing share of air pollution here – may also result in a significant improvement.
The findings assume improving emission standards for trucks that carry garbage to landfills or plants.
Quan said researchers also projected how air quality in Chilliwack would be impacted by each scenario in an eight-day "worst-case scenario" period of the summer, when air quality is typically worst.
He said ozone levels in 2020 in the test scenarios would be almost unchanged from today (as a result of waste technologies).
"The level of improvement in Chilliwack is less than the improvement in the region overall," Quan said. "There is no discernable differences between the scenarios."
Metro waste management chair Marvin Hunt said he's hopeful the results will calm concerns in the Fraser Valley.
"We can be confident that whatever scenario we come up with at the end of the day they will all have minimal impacts," he said.
The reports commissioned by Metro Vancouver can be viewed at
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/planning/Pages/default.aspx
© Copyright 2007 Surrey North Delta Leader