Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Renewable Energy and Economic Growth Pt. 2

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Renewable Energy and Economic Growth Pt. 2

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 17 Dec 2017, 18:31:27

I agree with Ghung. Burning trash for power is a really bad idea for a multitude of reasons:

1. It's expensive. Trash incineration is the most expensive way to either make energy or dispose of waste:
Trash Incineration is the Most Expensive Way to Make Energy
Image
Image
Trash Incineration is the Most Expensive Way to Make Energy

2. It's dirty. It's bad not just for human health, but the environment as well:
Despite being an attractive technological option for waste management, combustion-based processes for municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment are a subject of intense debate around the world. In the absence of effective controls, harmful pollutants may be emitted into the air, land and water which may influence human health and environment.

Environmental Issues
The incineration process produces two types of ash. Bottom ash comes from the furnace and is mixed with slag, while fly ash comes from the stack and contains components that are more hazardous. missions from incinerators can include heavy metals, dioxins and furans, which may be present in the waste gases, water or ash. Plastic and metals are the major source of the calorific value of the waste. The combustion of plastics, like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) gives rise to these highly toxic pollutants. Toxics are created at various stages of such thermal technologies, and not only at the end of the stack. These can be created during the process, in the stack pipes, as residues in ash, scrubber water and filters, and in fact even in air plumes which leave the stack. There are no safe ways of avoiding their production or destroying them. The ultimate release is unavoidable.

Human Health Concerns
Waste incineration systems produce a wide variety of pollutants which are detrimental to human health. Such systems are expensive and does not eliminate or adequately control the toxic emissions from chemically complex MSW.

People are exposed to toxics compounds in several ways:
* By breathing the air which affects both workers in the plant and people who live nearby;
* By eating locally produced foods or water that have been contaminated by air pollutants from the incinerator; and
* By eating fish or wildlife that have been contaminated by the air emissions.
Dioxin is a highly toxic compound which may cause cancer and neurological damage, and disrupt reproductive systems, thyroid systems, respiratory systems etc.
NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF INCINERATION-BASED WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

3. It removes incentives to reduce, reuse, and recycle and instead creates a perverse incentive to increase garbage production:
Incinerator technological intervention in the waste stream distorts waste management. Such systems rely on minimum guaranteed waste flows. It indirectly promotes continued waste generation while hindering waste prevention, reuse, composting, recycling, and recycling-based community economic development. It costs cities and municipalities more and provides fewer jobs than comprehensive recycling and composting and also hinders the development of local recycling-based businesses.
NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF INCINERATION-BASED WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

Sweden now imports about 700,000 tons of garbage per year to help produce electricity and heating for cities. Sweden has hard wired themselves into the need to burn garbage through district heating. As the rest of Europe moves away from burning because they recognize the down fall of creating toxins by burning all sort of mixed garbage, Sweden will be stuck.
Is burning garbage green?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Renewable Energy and Economic Growth Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 04:30:05

Got any cost estimates that don't come from the solar propaganda department? Could be the Natural Gas department based on that first graph.

Reality check time.
Is it reasonable to consider municipal waste streams as an energy source?
Yes. Clearly you can burn, compost, or otherwise consume municipal waste in a fashion that is net energy positive.

Is it reasonable to consider municipal waste a perpetual energy source?
Yes. Clearly people have always produced waste products and the more 'advanced' the culture the more 'waste' products it has produced. Up until the mid 20th century people in general dealt with their waste on a very small scale because scrap food was sent off to feed the livestock, especially the swine which are omnivores, and the burnable waste was generally consumed at home in the coal or wood stove as supplementary fuel. When Americans and Europeans went full urban this 'waste' became a problem but for the bulk of the population the material was consumed in the above fashions and the remnant glass/metal objects were tossed in a pile or pit unless or until the recycling price was worth the cost of hauling them in for reclamation.

People by our very nature generate a lot of trash. The consumer society that developed starting about 80 years ago has greatly increased the volume of this 'waste' because every nick knack comes individually packaged in various forms of plastic or paper or both.

Green dreams about the low consumption culture right around the future aside even 1920 NYC and San Fransisco generated millions of tons of combustible municipal waste and the quantity today is a great deal higher no matter how many recycling programs that cities have played around with over the years. Landfilling this waste is a stupid option taking up vast quantities of effort and energy in the process. Do you think all those gigantic bulldozer's and roller crushers with their smoke belching diesel engines are going to be electrified any time soon? What about all the semi loads of additional clay that are hauled in every year to seal down one months layer of trash before the next much is packed down on top for its turn at the burial process? The way a landfill works is large trucks haul in trash, it gets compated until the pile starts to get inconvenient to work around, then a layer of clay soil is dumped on top and packed down to seal it in and prevent disease from spreading as the organic materials decay. Then the next pile is dumped and crushed down beside the first and so on to the second and third and so on and so forth until the entire area of the dump has a layer of trash packed down and entombed. When the last pile is buried a dirt ramp is built on the edge so that the next pile can be built on top of the existing layer starting at the far edge and crossing the total area of the landfill until you are back to the ramp again, at which point the ramp is extended up another increment to begin the next layer. I have written elsewhere that the Toledo municipal landfill is now the highest 'mountain' within fifty miles of Lake Erie and can be easily spotted from I-75 from a distance of many miles because the landscape in this region is nearly flat. Larger cities build bigger mountains at an even faster rate with the exception of places on the ocean coast where sometimes they haul the trash out to sea and dump it in the ocean. I don't know it they still get away with that many places, but NYC was quite famous for it not all that long ago, turning a local problem into another tragedy of the commons.

You fellows can have all the green dreams you want, but at some point you need to recognize that the vast bulk of humanity does not share your dream and are not going to willingly live an austere lifestyle. Once you accept that reality you can move on to evaluate the options for handling municipal waste as cleanly and efficiently as possible.

My personal preference is to put everything organic through the TDP process to get back as much liquid fuel as possible and use the residual solid organic waste as supplemental fuel in coal/incinerator plants where the pollution controls are enforced. So far no major municipality has adopted the TDP option which leaves direct incineration either as a loan or co-fuel in a power production facility. Yes metals and inorganic materials like Glass should be separated out and recycled, but in practical terms that is a low percentage of the total municipal waste stream and an effective recycling system for glass and metal reduces it even further. I say effective deliberately because every study undertaken shows that even with moderately strong incentives a lot of metal and glass still end up in the waste stream.

Graeme and I banged heads a lot over the issue of the possible vs the ideal because he always saw that ideal solutions could be made to work in certain contexts if everyone behaved in a certain fashion. The problem is humans do not behave in those manners that make the ideal solutions work unless they absolutely have no choice, like sailors in a submarine on a long patrol or astronauts in the ISS-A. This brings me to my next point, what do the Sailors and Astronauts do with their waste that can not be easily recycled on board their moderately closed system environments? Well Sailors on Submarines have a nifty trash compactor/airlock system that lets them crush and eject their compacted waste out of the submarine in deep water where it sinks to the sea floor. The Astronauts on the other hand load all their accumulated waste into the cargo pod which brought up the replacement food and other consumable supplies. Once it is packed as full as they can get it the cargo unit is cast free and fires retro rockets to reenter the earth atmosphere at a shallow angle to provide maximum heating and burn it into as fine a dust as possible that scatters through the air and slowly descends to the surface.

So there you have it, two of the most expensive and most self contained systems built by humans still generate waste streams that have to be dealt with in the real world, not the ideal world.

Incinerating municipal waste and reclaiming the energy liberated in the process provides a steady 24/7/365 energy supply and landfilling or dumping that waste at sea are extremely poor choices IMO. As pointed out by the OP if the Baltimore incinerator were sited out of visible range of the people involved it wouldn't be a fight of any sort. I was a starry eyed environmental activist once and I learned the hard way it got me exactly nowhere with my neighbors, family, friends, or government, until I reevaluated my positions from ideal to practical. I urge everyone else to do the same.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Renewable Energy and Economic Growth Pt. 2

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 06:33:47

Tanada wrote:Got any cost estimates that don't come from the solar propaganda department? Could be the Natural Gas department based on that first graph.
The costs are taken directly from the EIA. Here is the source if you wish to verify:

Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants

Tanada wrote:Reality check time.
Is it reasonable to consider municipal waste streams as an energy source?
Yes. Clearly you can burn, compost, or otherwise consume municipal waste in a fashion that is net energy positive.
Reality check: This is the worst energy source we use. It's the worst in every category imaginable. It's capital costs are twice as high as coal CCS. It's fixed O&M costs are 5 times as expensive as offshore wind. It's variable O&M costs are higher than coal CCS. And to top it all off: it is dirty power. So is coal but at least coal is cheap. But Waste To Energy is the worst of both worlds: dirty and expensive.

Tanada wrote:You fellows can have all the green dreams you want, but at some point you need to recognize that the vast bulk of humanity does not share your dream and are not going to willingly live an austere lifestyle. Once you accept that reality you can move on to evaluate the options for handling municipal waste as cleanly and efficiently as possible.
Burning trash is neither clean nor efficient.

Tanada wrote:Incinerating municipal waste and reclaiming the energy liberated in the process provides a steady 24/7/365 energy supply and landfilling or dumping that waste at sea are extremely poor choices IMO. As pointed out by the OP if the Baltimore incinerator were sited out of visible range of the people involved it wouldn't be a fight of any sort. I was a starry eyed environmental activist once and I learned the hard way it got me exactly nowhere with my neighbors, family, friends, or government, until I reevaluated my positions from ideal to practical. I urge everyone else to do the same.
You can promote bad ideas whether you are a starry eyed environmental activist or a screw the planet industrial tycoon. A bad idea is a bad idea. When I was a child our community had no recycling program so everything was dumped in the trash. It was not starry eyed environmental activism that made us switch. It was the community recycling program created due to new recycling laws. Absent this, we would have blissfully continued to throw everything in the trash. Yet we changed our behavior. Of course even now the US still produces heaps of trash. I am not expecting we all hold hands and sing kumbaya. But if reduce, reuse, and recycle programs are expanded to further reduce waste I imagine the vast majority of people would go along with it. Even better: tax waste. A "pay as you throw" program where people were charged for disposing of waste reduced waste 44% and doubled recycling rates:

Why are many Americans oblivious to being serial waste generators?
“Because we’re not seeing it, we think it’s not a problem.” Unlike most utilities, such as gas, water and electricity, that are charged depending on how much is used, it works differently for waste. Because most cities and towns charge a flat fee for trash service or include it within the property tax, most Americans pay little attention to the amount of waste they are discarding. “By taking our waste away from us so efficiently, it makes us more inclined to dispose more.”

In the United States, where recycling programs have been operating in full force for years, some experts believe the answer to reducing waste lies in charging for its disposal by weight or other metrics. WasteZero promotes a bag-based “pay-as-you-throw” program. Used in more than 800 cities and counties across the country, the program charges residents a set fee in cash for each bag they dispose of at a drop-off location. The program has resulted in an average waste reduction of 44% and often doubles recycling rates, according to WasteZero’s statistics. “When you charge for something, people use less of it, and in this case it’s less trash”
The world's trash crisis, and why many Americans are oblivious

Your idea of burning the trash is just going to exacerbate the "out of sight, out of mind" problem we have with creating waste. Instead, tax it. Then people will pay attention real fast.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Renewable Energy and Economic Growth Pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 10:50:12

Kub said; "Instead, tax it. Then people will pay attention real fast."


Yep, and fine people who don't get with the program. When I was working in Snohomish County north of Seattle, I was fined while taking construction debris to the solid waste transfer station. The used/scrap drywall had to go into a specific bin (yes, they recycle drywall there). One of our workers had thrown a couple of aluminum cans in the truck which ended up in the drywall bin. We were charged $5 per can, and the attendant wasn't happy as he climbed down there to remove the cans. Other requirements were just as strict.

My point is that other jurisdictions have done a much better job of dealing with this problem. I don't see anything at all wrong with making individuals and businesses pay the full costs of their consumption, including waste streams.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Renewable Energy and Economic Growth Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 11:41:48

I never said incineration power was clean and green, I said you can use the same kind of pollution controls modern coal power stations use and clean up the exhaust streams. In addition it is a far better IMO to use the energy potential than to idiotically bury it in a landfill that will have the potential of leaking for many generations in the future. Landfilling combustible waste ranks right down there with discarding once through nuclear fuel in my book. If you killed a tree to make packaging and you choose not to go through the extensive cleaning and bleaching process necessary to reuse the cardboard then you by golly ought to at minimum use it to generate power and offset some fossil fuel use, though TBH turning it into fiber fill cellulose insulation would be a better end use.

As for the claims in the links you provided, the overnight capital costs document dates from 2013 and is simply an update from the 2010 document based on what it says on the front page.

The excel spreadsheet on the other hand is dated 2012 and proclaims that not only does it costs 2.5 times as much to construct a municipal waste power station as it does to build a modern cheap coal power plant, it also claims it costs 1.5 times as much as to build a Nuclear power station of the same capacity. Does that seem remotely plausible to you? It sure as heck sets off red flags for me. It then goes on to say the daily costs for running a Municipal plant are 1.85 times as much as running that same coal power station despite the fact that the municipal waste is already paid for fuel wise (the residents and business pay to have it disposed of) and in many states like Maryland in the story the OP quoted give it the same renewable standard as Wind power generators. Oh I am certain whomever anonymously authored that excel spread sheet however long ago they created it used real world numbers. They just happened to use the most pessimistic numbers they could find or they were lazy and used the first numbers that popped up from a simple search.

At its core fundamental state what takes place with Municipal waste that would make it more expensive than coal to operate and maintain the plant? Well first off the waste as a general standard is sorted to remove the metal and glass objects. This requires some manpower and some machinery that add expense, that much is true. However the resulting recovered glass and metal is then sent off for recycling through the existing system. The better the local recycling program incentives at the individual consumer level the less effort needed for this portion of the process and the contrary is also true, a system without a recycling system underlain will cost extra. A second factor is the mixed paper/plastic/food waste that remains to be incinerated emits a more complex exhaust gas mixture than typical soft coal or lignite power stations because it has some very strange constituent chemistries. However none of these chemistries are so wildly different than coal emissions as to make the stack scrubbing technology ineffective. IOW a modern incinerator power station using modern exhaust scrubbers will emit exhaust no dirtier than that which comes from a lignite burning power station. There are several large lignite burning plants in the USA but with our abundant resources of soft coal the majority of what we burn is higher grade. Germany on the other hand burns lignite in over half of their coal power stations while in Ireland they even have a federally operated peat burning power system.

As for exacerbating the out of sight out of mind issue the NIMBY effect is doing that on a far grander and more potent scale than any switch made in the USA to trash power stations providing 24/7 power to the grid. Because in the last few years combustion of municipal waste fell out of favor politically in the USA and most of the EU there have not been many new power stations built which makes it hard to get realistic numbers. If the Congress passed a law today saying that the Federal Government would extend renewable energy credits to municipal waste incinerators along the lines of the Wind and Solar energy credits they passed a decade ago provided the resulting power plants complied with the clean air act standards enforced on new coal stations you would see a wave of glowing claims about how building a new incinerator for your city/state was the 'right' thing to do. You know, 'for the children'...

That is the problem with having a highly charged strongly divided electorate, no matter what steps either side takes to promote one form or another of renewable or green energy the other side will reflexively reject it without actually giving it an evaluation based on reality. IMO Wind and Solar have been promoted by the fossil fuel industry because they know that without massive storage availability they can not offset fossil fuels to any great extent. On the other hand when was the last time you saw an article in favor of a large hydro-electric project? Hydroelectricity is 24/7/365 and once the capital investment is paid off it is the cheapest source of electricity for grid baseline power. However all of the large hydroelectric dams are state/federal owned so the utility company profits from them are minimal delivery charges not maximal generation profits. In the same way Trash Incinerators can provide the same kind of 24/7/365 energy to the grid, but because of the sorting requirements they cost more than an equally sized coal burning facility. In some cases the incinerators are government owned though I am not sure this is always the case. A minor set of incentives would offset the sorting costs and by declaring municipal waste a renewable fuel source able to receive the same tax incentives as other green technology would make them a profit earning enterprise for any utility company instead of a perceived drag on the bottom line.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Renewable Energy and Economic Growth Pt. 2

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 18 Dec 2017, 19:20:03

About the pollution, if you use scrubbers/filters that only shifts the pollution from the air to solid form. Which then gets buried in landfills. And which has such a heavy concentration of toxins that normally it won't legally be allowed to be buried. And the pollution inevitably ends up leaking into ground water.

About the capital costs, the reason they are so high is that a WTE plant produces much less electricity compared to a nuclear plant. For example, the Montevideo WTE plant below has a capacity of 43 MW for a cost of $420 million. This comes out to a capital cost of 9,767 $/kW, even higher than the capital costs given by the EIA. Compare that to a train wreck nuke plan: Flamville 3 which is going way over budget. Even with the costs nearly tripling from projected costs, the WTE plant is still around 1.5 as expensive as the nuke plant. Note this is a worst case scenario for nuclear. I'm not comparing to ultra cheap China nukes which would blow WTE out of the water.

WTE plant in Montevideo
Capital required to build: $420 million
capacity: 43 MW
electricity generated per year: 380 GWh
cost to build per kW: $420,000,000 / 43 MW = $9,767,442 per MW or 9,767 $/kw
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF A WASTE TO ENERGY PLANT FOR MONTEVIDEO

Flamville 3 nuclear reactor
cost to build: $11 billion
capacity: 1,650 MW
electricity generated per year: 10,696 GWh
cost to build per kW: $11,000,000,000 / 1,650 MW = $6,666,667 per MW or 6,666 $/kW
Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant

Similar case for the operating costs. The Montevideo plant was estimated to have a staff of 43 people. That is 1 person for each MW! The ratio in a coal power plant is more like 1 employee for every 6 MW. If you have a staff that is six times as big per MW then obviously you are going to have higher operating costs.

As for NIMBY and WTE both exacerbating the out of sight out of mind issue, kill two birds with one stone and tax the waste. Then it doesn't matter what rabbit hole the trash ultimately ends up in. It will be at the forefront of everyone's mind every time they make a decision to throw something away.

WTE does qualify for the federal renewable electricity production tax credit(PTC). This is the same credit other renewable sources use. That is in addition to state level incentives for WTE:
The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC), a credit offered periodically for the production of electricity from renewable sources, is the federal government's main incentive program for renewable energy. Technologies that qualify as renewable energy can change each year that the PTC is reauthorized. For example, the incineration of municipal solid waste now qualifies as renewable energy.
Renewable Energy Production Incentives

As for not being grounded in reality, to me your pro WTE position seems more ideological than reality based. When I linked to the real world costs of WTE, you seem to have a more emotional response than a pragmatic response. I can see the appeal of WTE on paper. Take filthy trash, turn it into energy. We will never run out of trash and this is killing 2 birds with one stone. Sounds great right? Well the reality is a bit more messy than that. The energy generated is infinitesimal compared to a nuke plant. The costs are astronomical compared to any plant. And the worst of the trash doesn't really go away. The most toxic elements get concentrated into a highly toxic sludge that is worse than what you started with. Even filtered out of the air, it still must be disposed of. A proper evaluation of a technology should include it's negatives in addition to it's positives. IMHO, the negatives of WTE outweigh the benefits by a large margin.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Previous

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests