Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option - the Recycling Council of

Researched and written by Jordan Best for the Recycling Council of B.C., October 2008

RCBC Background Paper:

Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option

RCBC Background Paper: Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option

Executive Summary 11.0 Introduction and Background 2

1.1 The Policy Context 31.2 Project Background 31.3 Plasco Energy Group 31.4 Plasco’s Ottawa Demonstration Project 31.5 The Plasma Gasification Technology 41.6 Plasco’s Proposal to Metro Vancouver 5

2.0 Environmental Performance 62.1 Air Contaminants and Emissions 62.1.1 Concentration Based Emissions 62.1.2 Total Emissions in the Lower Mainland 72.1.3 Landfills and WTE Compared 82.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 92.2.1 The Biogenic Carbon Debate 92.2.2 Avoided Emissions 112.2.3 Plasco’s GHG Emissions Claim 112.2.4 The Critics’ GHG Emissions Claim 122.2.5 Landfills and WTE Compared 122.3 Energy Production 142.4 Residual Products from the Conversion Process 152.4.1 Waste Products – Heavy Metals 152.4.2 “Recoverable” Products 162.4.3 “Potable Water” 162.5 The Zero Waste Alternative 17

3.0 Compatibility with Zero Waste Principles 193.1 WTE and Zero Waste 19

4.0 Conclusion 20

5.0 References 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RCBC Background Paper: Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

T he objectives of this backgroundpaper are to provide unbiasedinformation about Waste-to-

Energy (WTE) technology and theproposals that have recently beensubmitted to Metro Vancouver, and theexpected environmental performance ofthe technology.

The purpose of this document is to aidobservers in shaping an informed posi-tion on Metro Vancouver’s inclusion ofWTE as part of the proposed wastemanagement “solution” for the region.

This report focuses on Plasco EnergyGroup’s WTE technology since thiscompany has provided one of themore detailed, serious and innovativeproposals to Metro Vancouver. Inrecognition of the fact that a number ofother companies have similarly lobbiedthe region, it should be noted that thisreport is neither a statement against orin favour of Plasco Energy Group’sproposal.

While some of the research undertakenfor this report is specific to the MetroVancouver area, much of theinformation is general in nature andmany of the conclusions are broadenough to guide the general debate onWTE. The research on avoidedemissions and the GHG impacts ofWTE facilities and landfills, outlined inSection 2.2, is particularly specific toMetro Vancouver and the province ofBC. Care is required when comparingthese findings to other jurisdictionswhere the composition of waste and theGHG intensity of electricity sold on thegrid are different than that in MetroVancouver.

The Recycling Council of B.C. (RCBC)recently reaffirmed its position againstusing WTE as part of the solid wastemanagement regime in B.C. It isRCBC’s position that the use of WTEdoes nothing to encourage wastereduction and that WTE would, in fact,be quite unnecessary if full extendedproducer responsibility programs(product stewardship) and full organicsdiversion were in place.

If one examines the entire life cycle ofthe products that make up MSW, anddoes not focus solely on the disposalstage of this process, it is clear thatthere are other waste managementstrategies that can achieve higherenvironmental standards than eitherlandfilling or WTE. A Zero Wastestrategy that relies on reducing, reusingand recycling waste will conserve moreenergy, produce fewer air pollutants andGHG emissions, and will help solve theresidual problem still present in anyWTE scenario.

1.1 THE POLICY CONTEXT

Many regional districts acrossBritish Columbia are currentlyupdating, or planning to up-

date, their Solid Waste ManagementPlans (SWMP). This opportunity,combined with growing concern aboutthe volume of waste produced in theprovince and its impact on climatechange, is providing a new avenue forWaste to Energy companies to pushtheir technology. Many Waste to Energycompanies are lobbying regionaldistricts such as Metro Vancouver toconsider their technology as analternative to landfilling, and areframing this option as the most environ-mentally and economically responsiblemethod of dealing with the regions’waste. As Metro Vancouver is the firstregional district to seriously considerWaste to Energy as an integral part oftheir SWMP, this report will focus onthe WTE debate as it pertains to MetroVancouver.

This revised SWMP will guide thedirection of Metro Vancouver’s wastediversion and disposal programs for thecoming decade. While the new SWMPis not yet finalized, Metro Vancouverhas made it clear that its intent is toutilize the opportunity presented by thisplanning process to push the option ofWaste to Energy as a major componentof the region’s waste management plan.

Central to Metro Vancouver’s new plan,as outlined in its preliminary Strategyfor Updating the Solid Waste Manage-ment Plan (February 2008), is an in-crease in the diversion rate from thecurrent 52 percent to 70 percent. Avariety of initiatives have been pro-posed to achieve this target, from woodwaste diversion to the creation of a

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2 RCBC Background Paper: Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option

comprehensive organics collection andcomposting system. Metro Vancouverstaff, however, assert that populationpressures will continue to lead to net in-creases in the total waste generated each

year within the region, even if thisdiversion target is met. As such, MetroVancouver staff and elected officialshave focused their attention on finding adisposal destination for this ever-increas-ing waste stream.

A large percentage of MetroVancouver’s current waste stream iscurrently disposed of at the CacheCreek Landfill. In 2006, the CacheCreek Landfill accepted 442,000tonnes, or 33%, of the region’s waste,while the Vancouver Landfill (located inBurns Bog, Delta) accepted 605,000

tonnes, or 46%, and the Burnaby Wasteto Energy Facility processed 273,000tonnes, or 21%.1 The Cache CreekLandfill is expected to close in 2010,leaving Metro Vancouver without a des-

tination for about a third of its wastestream.

To meet these concurrent challenges,Metro Vancouver has proposed buildingmultiple Waste to Energy (WTE)facilities in the region. Metro Vancouverstaff reports focus heavily on the needto expand the traditional 3Rs approachto waste management to include theso-called fourth and fifth Rs;“Recover,” which involves recoveringenergy from waste through thermaltreatment and “Residuals Management”which involves handling the materials

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2034

Cache Creek Landfill

Interim Capacity

Vancouver Landfill750,000 tonnes per yearthen declining as WTE facilities are built

Metro Vancouver WTEF - 285,000 tonnes per year

Mun

ipic

alSo

lidW

aste

(to

nnes

)

Figure 1: Future Waste Management Scenario

Source: Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan, Metro Vancouver – February 2008 (Revised March 15, 2008)1 RCBC, 2008.

Metro has sent a clear message that it is seriouslyconsidering a fundamental shift towards WTE as a majorcomponent of its future waste management scenario.


left over at the end of this process. Twoof the three goals that Metro Vancouverhas proposed to guide the drafting of theSWMP are directly related to its callsfor new WTE plants:• “Goal #2 – Maximize Reuse,Recycling and Material/EnergyRecovery”; and

• “Goal #3 – Extract maximum benefitfrom the disposed waste stream.”2

As illustrated by Figure 1, MetroVancouver’s intention (though it is stillbeing debated) is not only to replace thecurrent capacity of the Cache CreekLandfill with WTE facilities, but toeventually phase out use of theVancouver Landfill and continue build-ing WTE capacity. Therefore, it is pre-dicted that by 2035 the region’s WTEfacilities would process about 1.5 mil-lion tonnes of municipal solid waste(MSW). Metro Vancouver elected offi-cials have gone so far as to muse thatthe region could mine existing landfillsto process buried waste and extract theenergy. While these proposals have notbeen officially accepted, Metro Vancou-ver has sent a clear message that it is se-riously considering a fundamental shifttowards WTE as a major component ofits future waste management scenario.

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The objective of this report is to providethe Recycling Council of B.C. and otherinterested parties with impartialinformation about Waste to Energytechnology, the proposals that havebeen submitted to Metro Vancouver andthe expected environmental perform-ance of this technology. The purpose ofthis document is to aid observers inshaping an informed position on MetroVancouver’s inclusion of WTE as partof the proposed waste management“solution” for the region.

The report focuses on Plasco EnergyGroup’s WTE technology since thiscompany has provided one of the moredetailed, serious and innovative propos-als to Metro Vancouver. In recognitionof the fact that a number of othercompanies have similarly lobbied theregion, it should be noted that this re-port is neither a statement against, or infavour of, Plasco Energy Group’sproposal. While some of the research isspecific to the Metro Vancouver area,much of the information is general innature and many of the conclusions arebroad enough to guide the generaldebate on WTE. The research onavoided emissions and the GHGimpacts of WTE facilities and landfills,outlined in Section 2.2, is particularlyspecific to Metro Vancouver and theprovince of BC. Care is required whencomparing these findings to otherjurisdictions where the composition ofwaste and the GHG intensity ofelectricity sold on the grid are differentthan in Metro Vancouver.

1.3 PLASCO ENERGY GROUP

Plasco Energy Group, herein referred toas Plasco, is a privately held companybased in Ottawa, Ontario. Plascoconsiders itself a “waste conversion andenergy generation” company, whose“world-leading technology” heralds theend to land-filling, providing a newsource for “renewable energy.”

With funding from groups such as FirstReserve Corp., Plasco has attracted $90million in investment funding over thelast three years. With this funding com-pleted, Plasco has been aggressivelypromoting its proposed technology tomunicipalities across North America.

Plasco’s patented technology isextremely new and there are no existingPlasco facilities running at the type of

processing capacity that is required toservice a municipality. Plasco has onlyoperated “research facilities” in Spainand Ottawa, and is currently operating acommercial demonstration project inOttawa.

1.4 PLASCO’S OTTAWADEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Plasco’s demonstration project inOttawa, located at the Trail RoadLandfill, is operated under a partnershipbetween Plasco and the City of Ottawa.The facility has been in operation sinceJanuary 2008. Plasco agreed to financethe construction and operation of theplant (with assistance in the form offunding from a federal grant programand the Ontario government) and toremove the facility if the demonstrationproject is unsuccessful. The City ofOttawa provided the site for the facilityand agreed to a tipping fee of$40/tonne.

As Plasco’s facility was classified as ademonstration project, it was exemptedfrom most aspects of the Ontario Min-istry of Environment’s EnvironmentalAssessment process, including publichearings. The facility did necessitate airand waste approval permits, as requiredby the Environmental Protection Act.Under these permits, the facility is per-mitted to process up to 75 tonnes/day ofregular MSW and up to 10 tonnes/dayof “Consistent Carbon Feed (CCF).”3The CCF is largely comprised of Types3,4,5,6 and 7 plastics (which Plascorefers to as “non-recyclable plastics”)and shredded tires, which the City ofOttawa agreed to provide since it doesnot currently have a strong market forthese products. The CCF is included todampen the energy fluctuations of

2 Metro Vancouver, 2008.3 Ministry of Environment (Ontario), 2006.

typical MSW and to boost the BTUcontent of the MSW, though Plasco isconfident that a CCF will not berequired in the future, and that typicalMSW will suffice to meet its electricityproduction predictions.

Every month a professional engineer,who is not an employee of Plasco, visitsthe site to observe and report on itsoperations and to verify compliancewith all relevant provincial permits.Most of these seven reports, which arepublicly available on the demonstrationproject’s website, state that “waste han-dling and waste inventory show mini-mal quantities processed during thismonth of operations.”4 In the month ofMay 2008, for example, the averagedaily quantity of MSW processed at thefacility was 4.5 tonnes, less than one-tenth of the 75 tonnes allowed by thepermits and less than what Plasco im-plies the facility has processed. As a re-sult, very little electricity has beenproduced and sold to the grid. Plasco’sOttawa website, for example, states that5.1 MWh have been produced from the85 tonnes of waste that have beenprocessed. This is an average of .06MWh/tonne of waste processed, whichis a far cry from the 1 MWh/tonne ofwaste processed that Plasco promises.

Plasco reports that a “series of operationalchanges has affected [the facility’s]ability to ramp up production rates.”5Constant maintenance and upgradeactivities have limited the facility’sability to process a significant quantityof waste. At the same time, someobservers have cautioned that thecontent of the MSW being processed isnot clearly defined and is not independ-ently verified to be ‘typical MSW’. Thewaste being processed, and the resulting

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND


air emissions data, may therefore not bean accurate representation of an actualcommercial-scale facility processing thetype of MSW available in MetroVancouver.

While this facility was designed todemonstrate the benefits of Plasco’stechnology, it is hard to draw conclu-sions on the technology’s environmentalor economic performance since so littleMSW has actually been processed in thesix months since the facility beganoperating. At this point it is still unclearwhether Plasco’s predictions concerningenergy production and air emissions arerealistic. More time will be neededbefore Plasco’s claims can be proven ordisproven by a real operational trackrecord.

1.5 THE PLASMA GASIFICATIONTECHNOLOGY

The plasma gasification technology thatPlasco operates is different fromtraditional mass-burn incinerators, as itconverts MSW into a synthetic gas(syngas) which is ‘cleaned’ and thenused to run internal combustion enginesthat produce electricity. Alternatively,traditional incinerators such as theBurnaby WTE facility typically convertMSW into steam, which holds lessenergy potential than a refined gas suchas syngas. Whether or not a plasmagasification plant is considered an“incinerator,” however, is simply amatter of semantics, though Plasco doesnot use the term.

Figure 2, on opposite page, illustratesthe different stages of the Plascoconversion process. As explained byPlasco, MSW is first shredded intouniform-sized pieces. Large metalobjects, such as white goods andbicycles, are removed to be sold asscrap metal. The shredded waste is fed

into the conversion chamber, along withair and steam. Air is then passed over astrong electrical current to produceplasma, an ionized gas that exceeds8000�C. The MSW is gasified by thisheat and reduced to its componentmolecules (primarily carbon monoxide,hydrogen, tars and un-reacted carbon).Once this gas passes into a secondarychamber, it is refined using plasma heatand process air to produce a cleaner andlighter gas. Plasco claims that this processdestroys all long-chain hydrocarbons,which is why it predicts that no dioxinsor furans will be created by the processif the facility is operating as expected.

The solid waste left over from theconversion process is sent to a separatechamber where it is melted by anotherplasma torch. Volatile compounds areremoved and the solids are stabilized byplasma heat. The resulting volatile gasesare removed, cleaned and combinedwith the main gas stream. The meltedmaterial is cooled in a water bath andformed into solid pellets. This solidresidue is further described anddiscussed in section 2.4.

The gas that is produced in the conver-sion chamber is ‘cleaned’ by passing itthrough a heat- recovery unit before it iscooled and particulates, metals, and acidcomponents are removed. Sulfur andsalt are the byproducts of this process,and are further described and discussedin section 2.4. The cooled gas thenenters a storage tank that blends thegases together to achieve consistent gasquality. These gases are then fed into aninternal combustion engine that powersa generator to produce electricity. Thiselectricity is used to operate theprocessing plant, with any leftoverelectricity sold to the grid. Waste heatcaptured from the engines and from theMSW conversion process can be usedto produce more electricity.

4Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited, 2008.5 Plasco Energy Group - A Partnership for a Zero-WasteOttawa Website, 2008.


Of main importance is that the Ottawademonstration project has yet to run atcapacity for an extended period of time.Further, the facility has not processedsignificant quantities of MSW and hasproduced very little electricity. Theprocess described above is simply thetheory behind Plasco’s technologywhich, as of yet, has not been proven ata commercial scale.

1.6 PLASCO’S PROPOSAL TOMETRO VANCOUVER

Plasco is attempting to portray its tech-nology to Metro Vancouver staff andelected officials as the waste manage-ment option with the maximum eco-nomic benefit and the minimumenvironmental impact. As proposed byPlasco, the company would finance theconstruction and operation of the plantitself. The region is not responsible forthis initial capital cost, however itwould be responsible for providing asuitable physical site for the plant.Criteria for such a site includeapproximately 2.4 ha of land in a rural,light-industrial or commercially zonedarea that is able to accommodate 400tonnes of MSW per day. Plasco claimsthat if the facility does not meet the en-vironmental standards agreed to in thecontract, the company would financethe removal of the plant and wouldreturn the land to its “original state.”

The contract between Plasco and MetroVancouver would be set for an initial 20years, and would lock in a tipping feethat would increase by half the rate ofinflation every five years. Plasco esti-mates that the cost of the tipping feewould range from $65 to $89 per tonne.The tipping fee rate depends on theprice achieved for the electricity sold tothe grid and is dependent on whetherthe produced electricity is classified as“green electricity” by BC Hydro. In On-

tario, where the electricity Plasco willproduce is classified as ‘green’ and nets11 cents per kWh, the tipping fee wasset at $65/tonne. If the electricity is notclassified as ‘green’ and is priced at thenormal 9 cents per kWh, the tipping feewill likely be closer to $89/tonne. Forcomparison, the Vancouver Landfill,Cache Creek Landfill and the BurnabyWTEF all currently charge a $65/tonnetipping fee. The Plasco contract wouldalso include a revenue-sharing agree-ment, whereby Metro Vancouver wouldbe entitled to 25% of the increasedrevenue from electricity sales if theprice for electricity paid by BC Hydroincreases at any point after the contractis signed.

A Plasco facility is designed in modularunits that are each capable of processingapproximately 100 tonnes of MSW aday. The company is proposing to buildone or more facilities with a minimumMSW feed of about 200 tonnes per day,though it is hoping to build facilitieswith a 400 tonne per day capacity. Ac-cording to Plasco, the company “fullysupports recycling initiatives” and does

not mind if the waste stream decreasesduring the contract period, as long asthe municipality gives Plasco one yearto prove that their technology cannotmatch the “environmental performance”of the diversion program. It is unclear,at this point, how this performancewould be determined and verified. Themethodology used for this processwould obviously change the outcomesignificantly, and Plasco has not yetprovided details on how this processwould occur.

Since the facilities are designed inmodular units, the company claims thatit will simply disconnect and dismantleone of the units if the waste streamdecreases. Plasco does, however, re-serve the right to import MSW fromother jurisdictions to make up for anyMSW shortfalls within the region.Plasco is confident that there will bemore than enough MSW to power theirproposed facilities, even if MetroVancouver’s diversion rates increase inthe future, given the projected increasesin population in the region.

Figure 2 Simplified Flow Diagram—Plasco Conversion Process

Source: Plasco Energy Group website at www.plascoenergygroup.com

2.1 AIR CONTAMINANTS ANDEMISSIONS

The release of harmful air emissionsfromWTE facilities is a common con-cern among critics of incineration.These emissions can be sourced toitems in the MSW stream, such as bat-teries, which when incinerated result inthe release of heavy metals into the at-mosphere (including mercury, lead andcadmium). If these same items arelandfilled, the heavy metals still exist,but many are buried instead of releasedinto the air. Other more serious contam-inants such as dioxins and furans are adirect byproduct of the combustionprocess in a WTE facility. WTE tech-nology has improved steadily over thelast few decades in relation to air emis-sions. New technologies have been ap-plied to older facilities to reduce therelease of airborne pollutants, and re-cently constructed incinerators , includ-ing many in Europe, producesignificantly lower emission levels thanolder facilities.

In the context of the Lower Mainland,the majority of the airborne pollutionfrom Metro Vancouver blows east onprevailing winds where it settles in theFraser Valley. Elected officials in thearea, including Abbotsford CouncilorPatricia Ross, have initiated a campaignto oppose Metro Vancouver’s WTEplans, citing the cumulative effects new


WTE plants would have on the region’sair quality. Already, children in theFraser Valley present higher rates ofasthma and other breathing difficultiesthan their cohorts in the western parts ofthe Lower Mainland.

2.1.1 Concentration BasedEmissions

Plasco has attempted to distance itselffrom the controversy surrounding in-cinerators and air pollution by brandingits technology as intrinsically different,clean, safe and environmentally benign.The company asserts that its technol-ogy creates “no adverse impacts toland, air, and water.” It also repeatedlymakes the claim that it converts wasteinto energy “without air emissions.”This claim, while technically true if thetechnology works as predicted, is mis-leading. A Plasco facility creates no airemissions during the conversionprocess, whereby MSW is convertedinto syngas, since this process is com-pletely contained. However, air emis-sions occur from the facility when thissyngas is burned in the internal com-bustion engines to create electricity.This distinction, while perhaps impor-tant from a mechanical standpoint,makes little difference to citizens andpolicy makers who are concerned abouttotal net releases of pollution into thelocal airshed.

Plasco also claims that the emissionsfrom its facilities are minimal, giventhat the syngas is cleaned before it isburned in the engines, as described insection 1.5. Consequently, the companypromises emissions levels far below anyother WTE technology currently in op-eration and far below the province ofB.C.’s regulatory limits.

Table 1 outlines the air emissions stan-dards that Plasco argues its technologywill meet, as listed by common air pol-lution parameters. “Plasco’s OperationalLimit in Ontario” refers to the limitsthat were placed on Plasco’s demonstra-tion facility in Ottawa by the OntarioMinistry of Environment, as outlined inAppendix A of their Certificate of Ap-proval for Air. For each of these param-eters, excluding lead, the operationallimits are stricter than British Colum-bia’s current provincial regulations.“Plasco’s Predicted Performance” refersto the level of emissions that Plascoclaims its technology will be able tomeet. Finally, the “Ottawa Facility’s Ac-tual Performance” column lists theemission levels reported by Plasco onits Zero Waste Ottawa website. Plascoreports a weekly average of emissionsfor Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrogen Chlo-rides, Sulphur Dioxide and OrganicMatter from its Continuous EmissionsMonitoring system at the Ottawademonstration project site. These num-bers are expressed as an average of the

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

Plasco has made extremely ambitious claims about its technology, asserting that its environmental performance far exceedsthat of landfills and other WTE facilities. The company refers to its technology, for example, as a “net negative source ofclimate-changing greenhouse gases” and claim that its facilities have “no harmful emissions.” The objective of this section

is to critically examine Plasco’s environmental performance claims and to compare Plasco’s technology, and WTE in general,with other waste management scenarios through the lens of specific environmental criteria. While many comparisons are madebetween landfills and WTE facilities, which mirrors the way Plasco and Metro Vancouver have attempted to frame the debate, it isimportant to note that these disposal options do not constitute the only two waste management options available to Metro Vancou-ver, as will be discussed in Section 2.5.


weekly levels reported from February12, 2008 to June 23, 2008. Numbershave not yet been released for the otherparameters.

It is difficult to draw any definite con-clusions from the numbers listed inTable 1. While Plasco has made ambi-tious predictions about the levels ofemissions their facilities will achieve,that are well below current regulatorylimits, these predictions have yet to beproven through the actual processing ofcommercial quantities of MSW. Of thefour parameters that Plasco has reportedto date, two are approximately twice thelevel Plasco predicts it will be able to

meet and two are roughly half the levelPlasco predicts. Because the facility hasbeen operating for less than half a year,and since so little MSW has actuallybeen processed, these numbers are notyet statistically significant. For many ofthe other parameters, such as mercuryand lead, testing results have not yetbeen reported and it is impossible toknow whether or not Plasco’s expectedair emission levels are realistic.

Since the creation and release of dioxinsand furans has remained one of the mostcontroversial aspects of WTE, it is ofparticular importance to note that Plascoclaims its process will not release any of

these carcinogenic particles duringnormal operations. Plasco argues that itsconversion process breaks down wasteto the atomic level and operates withoutoxygen present in the “air-starved con-ditions” of the conversion chamber.Therefore, it is argued that dioxins andfurans will not be formed or released.Critics such as Dr. Paul Connett pointout, however, that it is impossible toassume that oxygen will not enter thesystem, as oxygen is often present intypical MSW items such as empty popbottles. Plasco does note that “duringequipment or process malfunctions,dioxins may be formed until the equip-ment is shut down, or until the processis stabilized. During these short andinfrequent transition periods, the facilitymay produce 0-30 picograms/Nm3.”6 Ifa Plasco facility is able to operate at acommercial level without creating andreleasing dioxins/furans, WTE technol-ogy will have changed dramatically.Until this claim can be verified withemissions reporting from the Ottawademonstration project and accurate datafrom an actual commercial facility thesepredictions will remain contested.

2.1.2 Total Emissions in the LowerMainland

While it is useful to quantify and com-pare concentration-based emissionsdata, those concerned with the air qual-ity impacts of new WTE facilities aregenerally more interested in the net im-

Parameter UnitPlasco’s

OperationalLimit in Ontario

Plasco’sExpectedPerformance

OttawaFacility’s ActualPerformance

Nitrogen Oxides ppmv 110 20 45

HydrogenChloride

ppmv 13 2 .9

Sulphur Dioxide ppmv 14 4 9

Organic Matter ppmv 75 25 10.6

Mercury mg/m3 .02 .0005

Cadmium mg/m3 .014 .001 ——

Lead mg/m3 .142 .012 ——

Dioxins and Furans

ng/m3 .041 0.00000 ——

Source: Plasco Energy Group – Zero Waste Ottawa Website and personal communication

Table 1 – Plasco Air Emissions by Concentration

6 Plasco Energy Group, 2005.

Plasco…promises emissions far below any other WTEtechnology…and far below the province of B.C.’s regulatory limits.

Figure 4 – N0x Emissions in 2020

All OtherSources15%

CementPlants10%

Heating17%

Light-DutyVehicles15%

Heavy-DutyVehicles3%

Metro-VancouverSolid Waste

Operations 0.5%

Marine27%

Figure 3 – PM2.5 Emissions in 2020

All OtherSources31%

Burning13%

Heating20%

Nonroad7%

Metro VancouverSolid Waste Operations

0.26%Marine12%

Misc. AreaSources17%

pact of new facilities on the region’s airshed. Since WTE facilities would repre-sent a new and additional source of airpollutants in the Lower Mainland, it isimportant to quantify the total net emis-sions that these facilities would con-tribute.

Figure 3 below outlines the sources ofParticulate Matter2.5 that Metro Vancou-ver would be releasing in the year 2020if the proposed WTE facilities were op-erating. In this scenario, solid waste op-erations would be responsible for about0.26% of total Particulate Matter2.5 pro-duced in the region. Figure 4 illustratesthat under the same assumptions solidwaste operations would be responsiblefor about 0.5% of NOx releases in 2020.These percentages are extremely smallwhen compared to sources such as heat-ing, transportation and cement produc-tion. While the new emissions mayseem statistically insignificant, air qual-ity is already a concern in the region,and the issue of adding new sources ofemissions remains controversial.



2.1.3 Landfills and WTE Compared

In the debate over WTE and air emis-sions, the fact that landfills are also asignificant source of airborne pollutantsis often ignored or forgotten. At modernlandfill sites methane is often collected,flared, and burned to produce energyand reduce the release of greenhousegases. Both the Vancouver Landfill andthe Cache Creek Landfill have such sys-tems in place and it is assumed that ifMetro Vancouver decided to expand itslandfill capacity instead of constructingWTE facilities, these landfills wouldalso have gas collection systems. Land-fill gas systems often release many ofthe same pollutants as do WTE facili-ties, including heavy metals and diox-ins. The Vancouver Landfill’s gascollection system, for example, released191 tonnes of carbon monoxide, 37tonnes of nitrogen oxides and .54 tonnesof Particulate Matter10 in 2006.7

While both landfills and WTE facilitiesare significant sources of air pollutants,they are unlikely to produce the samequantity of pollutants per tonne ofMSW disposed. When weighing themerits of various waste managementoptions, it is therefore important tocompare landfills and WTE facilitiesaccording to their air pollutant releases.Metro Vancouver released a report in2008 entitled Environmental Life CycleAssessment of Solid Waste Manage-ment: Evaluation of Two Waste Dis-posal Scenarios for the MetroVancouver Region that employed lifecycle analysis principles to compare ahypothetical landfill scenario with aWTE scenario. In the report the hypo-thetical landfill is located in an arid cli-mate 750km from Vancouver, has a totalcapacity of 50 million tonnes and an an-nual operating capacity of 750,000tonnes. It also has a landfill gas collec-tion system with a 65% capture rate.The hypothetical WTE facility has anannual operating capacity of 750,000

Source: Fred Nenninger Presentation to RCBC Conference, June 26, 2008 – Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Management Plan Development

7 Environment Canada, 2008.


tonnes, employs mass-burn technologyand meets the emission control levels ofmodern facilities in Europe, which areconsiderably better than the currentBurnaby WTE facility. In this hypothet-ical example, which was designed to re-alistically model two of MetroVancouver’s future waste disposal op-tions, it was shown that there is no clear“winner” between landfills and WTEfacilities in terms of air pollutants.

Table 2 illustrates some of the resultsfrom this report. According to thisanalysis, a WTE facility produces andreleases much higher levels of heavymetals such as mercury, cadmium andlead. Landfills, however, release almosttwo thirds as many dioxins as a WTEfacility. For other important air pollu-tion parameters, such as nitrogen ox-ides, particulate matter and carbonmonoxide, a landfill with a gas collec-tion system actually releases more pol-lutants. Many of the numbers for theWTE scenario would be considerablylower if Plasco’s technology was se-lected and if it worked according tocompany claims. However, since thesenumbers are not yet proven the compar-ison in Table 2 is considered more validbecause it relies on real data in itsanalysis from actual operating facilities.It is important to note that in this analy-sis, the landfill emissions would be lo-cated outside of the Lower Mainland airshed while the WTE emissions wouldbe located within the Lower Mainlandair shed.

Landfills with gas collection systemsproduce many of the same pollutants asWTE facilities. Whether or not a WTEfacility emits more pollutants than alandfill is primarily a function of the pa-rameter that is studied. Researchersweigh different categories of air pollu-tants differently according to theirhealth and ecosystem impacts, though

there is no consensus as to how thesepollutants should be contrasted. Air pol-lution, therefore, is a waste disposalproblem, not a WTE problem. NewWTE facilities would certainly con-tribute a new source of air pollution tothe Lower Mainland, but so would alocal landfill that dealt with this samequantity of waste. If Plasco’s technol-ogy can achieve the emission levels thecompany predicts, these emissionscould be reduced, but not eliminated.

2.2 GREENHOUSE GASEMISSIONS

Waste disposal systems are a significantsource of greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-sions. Metro Vancouver estimates thatin 2005, its solid waste program was re-sponsible for 272,000 tonnes of GHGs,or about 93% of the emissions fromgovernment operations.8 Since MetroVancouver has set a GHG reduction tar-get of 33% by 2020 and 80% by 2050,reducing the level of GHG from thewaste management system is critical tothe success of the region’s climatechange strategy.

Both the proponents and the critics ofWTE have made extravagant claimsabout the GHG intensity of WTE facili-

ties. Plasco, for example, argues that itsfacilities are a net-negative source ofGHGs since they offset more emissionsthan they produce. On the other hand, arecent report by anti-incinerator groupsclaims that WTE facilities emit moreCO2 per megawatt-hour than a coal-fired plant. Clearly, both of these claimscannot be true. Sorting out the differ-ence between these two claims requiresan understanding of two controversialaspects of GHG accounting; biogeniccarbon and avoided emissions.

2.2.1 The Biogenic Carbon Debate

Two types of carbon are present inMSW; fossil carbon and biogenic car-bon. Fossil carbon is carbon that has itsorigin in fossils, and is most notablypresent in MSW in the form of plastics.Biogenic carbon is created by thegrowth of plants and animals and ispresent in MSW in the form of wood,paper, plant waste, food waste and rub-ber. When MSW is sent to a landfill,fossil carbon is buried and not releasedinto the atmosphere. Biogenic carbon isreleased as landfill gases such as carbondioxide (CO2) and methane, which is 21

Table 2 – Air Emissions: Landfill Scenario vs WTE Scenario

Source: The Sheltair Group, 2008, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Solid Waste Management:Evaluation of Two Waste Disposal Scenarios for the Metro Vancouver Region.

Parameter Unit Landfill Scenario WTE Scenario

Nitrogen Oxides g/tonne of MSW 470 190

Sulphur Oxides g/tonne of MSW 56 84

Carbon Monoxide g/tonne of MSW 6,100 90

Particulate Matter10 g/tonne of MSW 13 3

Mercury mg/tonne of MSW 0.347 31.9

Cadmium mg/tonne of MSW -0.024 4.11

Lead mg/tonne of MSW 6.46 48.56

Dioxins �g/tonne of MSW .019 .032

8 Nenninger, 2008.9 Sheltair Group, 2008

times more potent a GHG than CO2.When the methane is collected andburned, it is converted to CO2 and re-leased. Nitrous oxide is also releasedwhen the landfill gas is combusted,which is 310 times more potent thanCO2. When MSW is processed in aWTE facility, both biogenic carbon andfossil carbon are converted to CO2 andreleased into the atmosphere.

The International Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) estimates that biogeniccarbon constitutes about 60% of the car-bon in MSW.9 Since biogenic carbonconstitutes such a high percentage ofthe total carbon in MSW, the inclusionor exclusion of biogenic carbon releasesin the GHG accounting system of awaste disposal facility will change itstotal GHG estimate considerably.Whether or not these releases should beincluded, however, is controversial.

In most GHG emissions inventories, therelease of biogenic carbon into the at-mosphere in the form of CO2 is gener-ally not counted as a GHG. Biogeniccarbon that is converted to methane,however, is considered a GHG. Bio-genic CO2 is excluded as it is consid-ered part of the natural carbon cycle,since these plants would have releasedthe same quantity of CO2 if they hadbroken down in a natural ecosystem in-stead of in a waste disposal facility. In aforest, for example, a tree consumesCO2 while it is alive and releases itwhen it dies. When another tree growsto fill its place, it consumes CO2 and thequantity of CO2 in the atmosphere re-mains unchanged. Forests, however, arenot being reforested at the same rate atwhich they are being converted intoproducts such as wood and paper. Asthe globe’s forests shrink in biomass,this carbon cycle is broken and the con-



sumption of goods like wood and paperbecomes a net source of CO2 emissions.

The IPCC, in its 2006 Guidelines for Na-tional Greenhouse Gas Inventories, con-cludes that biogenic CO2 releases fromincinerators should not be included in theEnergy section of a country’s GHG ac-counts. Any decrease in biomass that iscausing net releases in carbon should beincluded in the Agriculture, Forestry andOther Land Use (AFOLU) section of thatcountry’s inventory.10 This basic distinc-tion is why proponents of WTE facilitiesand many neutral observers assume thatbiogenic releases of CO2 from WTE fa-cilities should not be included in theirtotal emission counts.

The distinction that the IPCC outlines,however, only makes sense on a na-tional level, since the biogenic emis-sions ignored in the Energy section arecompensated for in the AFOLU section.When attempting to quantify and com-pare the emissions from an actual facil-ity all net releases of GHGs should beincluded, since it does not matter if theyare also included in another sector ofthe economy’s GHG inventory. The pur-pose is not to create a national inventorywithout duplication, which is what theIPCC guidelines were designed to sup-port, but to quantify and compare theemissions from specific waste manage-ment options. Therefore, it is incorrectto ignore the biogenic releases of CO2from a waste disposal facility as Plascohas done. It may also be incorrect to in-clude all of the biogenic releases ofCO2 in a facilities emissions count, assome opponents of WTE have done inrecent reports. One possible compro-mise is to include only the net increasein biogenic releases (equal to the netrate of biomass loss) which are GHGs.

For example, if 10% of the organicwaste (wood, paper, plant waste etc.)

entering a WTE facility comes fromforests that are not replanted, the argu-ment can be made that 10% of the bio-genic carbon emissions should becounted. Put another way, if the con-sumption of certain organic goods suchas wood and paper leads to a net bio-mass decline of 10% in the forests fromwhich these goods were extracted, 10%of the biogenic releases that a WTE fa-cility emits when these goods areprocessed in MSW should be includedin that facility’s GHG inventory. Whilethis is a hypothetical example, it pro-vides one possible method of estimatinga WTE facility’s true biogenic emis-sions. The difficulty, is to estimate thepercentage of organics that come fromsources experiencing net biomass loss,and to estimate the rate at which thatbiomass is declining. Unfortunately,since most waste management literatureassumes that all biogenic releasesshould be ignored, these issues have notbeen adequately explored. Therefore,while it is important to not ignore thebiogenic carbon releases from a wastemanagement facility, little guidance ex-ists to assist us in estimating what theactual net biogenic GHG emissions arefrom that facility.

What is often forgotten in this debate isthat landfills also emit biogenic carbonin the form of CO2, typically in the con-version of methane to CO2 when the fa-cility’s gas is collected and burned. Assuch, a fair comparison between the twowaste disposal options would either in-clude or exclude biogenic releases in theGHG estimates of each type of facility.

These unresolved questions and con-flicts concerning biogenic carbon areone of the major reasons there is such alarge discrepancy between the GHGemissions that the opponents and propo-nents of WTE estimate a given facilitywill produce. 10 See IPCC, 2006.


Air pollution is a waste disposal problem, not a WTE problem. New WTE facilities would certainly contribute a new source of airpollution to the Lower Mainland, but a local landfill that dealt with

this same quantity of waste would do so as well.

11 Sheltair Group, 2008.12 Ibid.13 Equivalent Carbon Dioxide14 Sheltair Group, 2008.

2.2.2 Avoided Emissions

Another equally controversial and potentially misleading component of aWTE facility’s GHG emissions count isthe issue of avoided emissions. When aWTE facility produces electricity that issold on the provincial grid, this displacessome other form of power on the grid.Whatever GHG emissions this displacedpower usually emits, therefore, can bediscounted from the total emissions countof the WTE facility. The controversy liesin determining the GHG intensity of thepower that the WTE facility is displacing.This is a question that is highly contested.If, for example, a WTE facility displacesonly coal-fired power imported from Alberta (which Plasco assumes would bethe case), this would displace about 900tonnes of C02e per GWh of energy produced.11 If instead, the WTE facilitywas displacing the average GHG intensity of electricity produced in BC,the facility would only displace about 33tonnes of C02e per GWh of energy produced.12 Determining which GHG intensity figure a unit of power producedby a WTE facility is displacing will obviously make a large impact on that facility’s total emissions count, but thefinal decision on what number to use is,at this time, open to debate and interpretation.

Plasco also claims that they will be ableto achieve offsets by producing heat thatcan be sold and used as district heating,thereby achieving additional offsets.

These offsets are factored into their advertised GHG figures.

2.2.3 Plasco’s GHG EmissionsClaim

Plasco has claimed that its facilitieswould be net GHG negative. For everytonne of MSW processed, the companyasserts that 0.6 tonnes of C02e

13 will bereleased from its facility (through theconversion of fossil carbon to CO2), 1.5tonnes of C02e will be displacedthrough avoided methane emissions thatwould have occurred if the waste hadbeen landfilled, and 1.4 tonnes of C02ewill be displaced by avoided emissionsfrom power displacement on the provin-cial grid. Plasco claims that processingone tonne of MSW would result in a netdisplacement of 2.3 tonnes of C02e. Thisclaim is based on three basic assump-tions, each of which is refuted below.

1) Plasco’s estimate of GHG releasesdoes not include biogenic CO2 releases.Their estimate that each tonne of MSWwould produce 0.6 tonnes of C02e in-cludes only non-biogenic sources ofcarbon (fossil carbon). As outlined insection 2.1.1, biogenic carbon is a sig-nificant source of GHG releases from aWTE facility, and while not all of thesereleases should be included in an emis-sions inventory, a portion of themshould be. To exclude all biogenic emis-sions leads to a GHG estimate that isunrealistically low.

2) Plasco’s claim that 1.5 tonnes ofC02e will be displaced for each tonne ofwaste managed through avoidedmethane emissions that would have oc-curred if the waste had been landfilledis not applicable in the context of MetroVancouver. Only landfills without alandfill gas collection system wouldemit the quantity of methane required toproduce this estimate of C02e. Methaneis currently collected and burned at boththe Vancouver and Cache Creek Land-fills and it is assumed that if Metro Vancouver expanded landfill capacityinstead of building WTE facilities, theselandfills would employ similar, if notimproved, landfill gas technology. Amodern landfill that employs a landfillgas collection system emits about 400kg of CO2 per tonne of waste managed,primarily through escaped methane.14This number assumes a methane capturerate of about 65%. While some expertshave claimed that higher capture ratesare possible, 65% remains a realistic es-timate. Needless to say, Plasco’s claimthat 1.5 tonnes of C02e will be displacedthrough avoided methane emissions israther inflated. At the same time, ifMetro Vancouver initiates a serious organics diversion program, as it is currently planning, the amount ofmethane that the region’s MSW is capable of producing in a landfill willdecline significantly, further widening

the gap between the real avoidedmethane emissions and Plasco’s claim.

3) Plasco’s claimed power displace-ment figure is based on its facility re-placing 100% coal-fired power, whichPlasco estimates produces about 1,000tonnes of C02e/GWh. This figure is en-tirely unrealistic in the context of B.C.’senergy reality. Coal-fired power, whichis currently imported from Alberta,makes up a small percentage of thepower on B.C.’s grid. B.C. currently im-ports and exports power, according toever-changing market conditions andfluctuating water-levels behind theprovince’s major dams. It is unrealisticto assume that the relatively minorquantity of power produced by a WTEfacility would have any bearing onwhether or not Alberta’s coal-firedpower is added to B.C.’s grid. At thesame time, B.C.’s long-term energyplan is to be entirely energy self-suffi-cient by 2016.

A more realistic way to quantify theGHG savings from the power displacedby a WTE facility is to consider theGHG intensity of the province’s con-sumption average, which has been esti-mated at 87 tonnes of C02e/GWh.

15 Thisfigure is the weighted average of the en-ergy that is both produced and importedinto B.C. and represents the GHG inten-sity of the average power on B.C.’sgrid. Since Plasco’s analysis assumesthat the produced power from a Plascofacility will displace power with a GHGintensity of 1,000 tonnes of C02e/GWh,instead of a more realistic figure such as87 tonnes of C02e/GWh, their GHG predictions are, at best, misleading.

Section 2.2.5 below outlines a more realistic evaluation of the GHG emis-sions from a modern WTE facility, and



compares these emissions with those ofa modern landfill.

2.2.4 The Critics’ GHG Emissions Claim

While the GHG quantities published byPlasco are grossly underestimated, theGHG estimates of some WTE oppo-nents are potentially overestimated. In arecently released report entitled Trash-ing the Climate, written by representa-tives from prominent anti-incineratorgroups such as Eco-Cycle and theGlobal Anti-Incinerator Alliance, theauthors claim that processing MSW in aWTE facility emits more GHGs per unitof power produced than a coal-firedplant. The authors arrive at this conclu-sion by including 100% of biogenic car-bon emissions in their GHG count.

Section 2.2.1 above outlined the ration-ale behind including biogenic carbonemissions in the GHG analysis of aWTE facility. While it may be incorrectto exclude all of a facility’s biogenicemissions, it may also be incorrect toinclude all of a facility’s biogenic emissions. Again, the difficulty is inknowing what percentage of biogenicemissions to include, as so little professional guidance is available onthis question. Since biogenic carbonrepresents about 60% of the total carbonin MSW, including all of this carbonwhen it is converted into CO2 willclearly increase the total GHG count bya significant amount.

In summary, analysis that includes allbiogenic CO2 in the calculations of a facility’s GHG emissions, such as thatcontained in the report Trashing the Climate, may arrive at an overestimatedGHG figure.

2.2.5 Landfills and WTE Compared

While both the strongest proponents andthe most vocal opponents of WTE tendto provide GHG estimates that are unrealistic, determining the actual GHGintensity of a WTE facility is fraughtwith difficulties. Many of the same difficulties exist when attempting to calculate the GHG emissions from alandfill. However, extremely general-ized comparisons can be made betweenthe two waste disposal options. Whilethe numbers may not be exact given thelarge number of assumptions that mustbe made prior to any calculation, comparisons are still valid.

The most thorough and independentanalysis of the GHG intensity of WTEfacilities and landfills that is directlyrelevant to the Lower Mainland is theaforementioned report commissioned byMetro Vancouver entitled Environmen-tal Life Cycle Assessment: Evaluation ofTwo Waste Disposal Scenarios for theMetro Vancouver Region. This reportconsiders the entire life cycle GHGemissions of a landfill and a WTE facil-ity, including emissions from the con-struction of the facilities, transportationof the MSW to the facilities, the opera-tions of the facilities and the avoidedemissions from the power sold onto theprovincial grid from both facilities. Itshould be noted that under the WTEscenario, it is assumed that the waste ishauled an average of 25 km from itssource to the WTE facility. This distance increases, along with expectedGHG emissions, if waste is importedfrom other communities, which is possible under Plasco’s proposed contract (see Section 1.6).

If one ignores the issue of avoidedemissions momentarily, since this issueis so controversial, the calculationsshow that the GHG intensities of these15 Ibid.


two disposal options are remarkablysimilar. The report estimates that both alandfill and a WTE facility emit justover 400 kg of C02e/tonne of MSW. In alandfill the vast majority of these emis-sions are from escaping methane and ina WTE facility the majority of theseemissions are from the conversion offossil based carbons in plastics intoCO2. Even though this particular reportexamines the emissions from a tradi-tional mass-burn WTE facility, thesenumbers are relatively similar in aPlasco facility. Since the majority of theWTE facility’s emissions are derivedfrom the combustion of plastics, thisnumber will only change with the quan-tity of plastics in the MSW, and is not areflection of the type of WTE technol-ogy. In other words, if the issue ofavoided emissions is ignored, the totallife cycle GHG emissions, expressed asC02e/tonne of MSW disposed, is almostidentical whether the waste is disposedof in a landfill, processed in a tradi-tional mass-burn incinerator orprocessed in a Plasco facility.

Once avoided emissions are included,however, the different technologiesbegin to diverge in GHG intensity. Alandfill with a landfill gas capture sys-tem is able to produce energy that, whenadded to the provincial grid, results inavoided emissions from the displacedprovincial power. The Metro Vancouverreport assumes that any power displacedfrom the grid has a GHG intensity of 87tonnes of C02e/GWh, which represents

the provincial consumption average es-timated by the report’s author. A land-fill, therefore, would displace about 55kg of C02e/tonne of MSW. When thisnumber is subtracted from the GHG in-tensity total of landfilling, the reportconcludes that a landfill emits about370 kg of C02e/tonne of MSW. Since atraditional mass-burn WTE facility isable to produce more power, it is able todisplace about 145 kg of C02e/tonne ofMSW, resulting in a total GHG intensityestimate of 290 kg of C02e/tonne of MSW.

Plasco claims that its technology will becapable of producing about two timesmore energy per unit of waste processedthan a traditional WTE facility. Thisclaim, however, remains unproven, assection 2.3 will discuss. If a Plasco fa-cility proves capable of generating thisquantity of power, and the assumptionsthat guides the Metro Vancouver reportremain valid, a Plasco facility will beconsiderably less GHG-intensive thaneither a landfill or a traditional WTE fa-cility. If a Plasco facility is able to pro-duce twice as much power as atraditional incinerator, it will displacetwice as many GHGs from the provin-cial grid. As such, an additional 145 kgof C02e/tonne of MSW can be sub-tracted from the traditional WTE facil-ity’s GHG estimate to calculate aPlasco’s facility’s GHG intensity, sincethe quantity of displaced emissions canbe doubled. According to these calcula-tions, a Plasco facility would, therefore,produce approximately 145 kg of

C02e/tonne of MSW16. When compared

to the 370 kg of C02e/tonne of MSWfrom a landfill, and the 290 kg ofC02e/tonne of MSW from a traditionalWTE facility, the estimated GHG inten-sity of the proposed Plasco technologyappears to be lower.

Extreme caution is advised before draw-ing hard conclusions from these num-bers since they are based on a largenumber of assumptions. Plasco’s Ot-tawa demonstration project has not yetproven that the technology is capable ofproducing the quantity of energy re-quired to offset the emissions assumedin the above calculations. The MetroVancouver report also excluded emis-sions derived from biogenic carbon inits calculations. Since both a landfill(through methane that is captured andconverted to C02) and a WTE facilityproduce emissions from biogenicsources it is assumed that comparisonsbetween the two disposal options werestill statistically valid. While the general

While 1.3 kg of heavy metals per tonne of MSW processed may notseem like a large quantity, this represents the production of about520 kg of heavy metals a day… or about 190 tonnes a year.

16 290 kg of C02e/tonne of MSW (total GHG intensity es-timate of a traditional WTE facility) - 145 kg ofC02e/tonne of MSW (quantity of emissions displaced bya traditional WTE facility) = 145 kg of C02e/tonne ofMSW (total GHG intensity estimate of a Plasco facility).17 The report included biogenic CO2 emissions in Appen-dix B and concluded that the WTE scenario producesabout twice as many biogenic CO2 emissions as the land-fill scenario. If 100% of biogenic CO2 emissions are in-cluded, the landfill scenario will produce about 617 kg ofCO2e/tonne of MSW and the WTE scenario will produceabout 875 kg of CO2e/tonne of MSW. If, instead, 10% ofbiogenic CO2 emissions are included, as in the hypotheti-cal example illustrated in section 2.2.1 above, the landfillscenario will produce about 395 kg of CO2e/tonne ofMSW and the WTE scenario will produce about 349 kgof CO2e/tonne of MSW.

comparison is valid, the actual numbersare not since they do not include anybiogenic releases.17

In addition, the quantity of methaneproduced and captured at a landfill andthe quantity of plastics in the MSWstream are both difficult to estimateunder present conditions and impossibleto predict into the future. Metro Van-couver, for example, is planning to in-troduce a comprehensive organicscollection and composting system. Thiswill reduce the quantity of organics inthe MSW stream and subsequently re-duce the methane emissions from land-fills, resulting in a lower GHG intensity.On the other hand, as plastic recyclingintensifies with the rising price of oiland new EPR programs, the quantity offossil carbon in the MSW stream willdecrease. This will lower the GHG in-tensity of a future WTE facility.

Finally, since the avoided emissionsfrom different disposal options is thefactor that leads to a diversion of theirestimated GHG totals, any changes tothe GHG intensity of the province’s en-ergy system will considerably changethese estimates. The B.C. governmentrecently announced that the provincewill be energy self-sufficient by 2016and that the energy system will soon be“carbon-neutral.” If these policies areadopted, the avoided emissions from alandfill or a WTE facility will decreasesignificantly and their GHG totals willincrease and converge (since, whenavoided emissions do not occur, theiremissions intensities are almost identi-cal).

As these examples illustrate, it is ex-tremely difficult to predict and comparethe future GHG emissions from differ-ent waste disposal options. Expectedpolicy changes and new research ontopics such as biogenic carbon releases



will change the reality of the GHGemissions from landfills and WTE facil-ities. While recent research implies thatWTE facilities are less GHG intensivethan landfills, it is impossible to predicthow this will change in the future.

2.3 ENERGY PRODUCTION

Plasco claims that its technology will beable to produce more than twice asmuch power per unit of MSWprocessed as a traditional mass-burn in-cinerator. For this reason, Plasco por-trays itself in its marketing materials asan energy company with an energy so-lution, not just a waste disposal com-pany with a garbage solution.

According to Plasco’s calculations, onetonne of MSW processed at a Plasco fa-cility will produce about 1.2-1.4MWh/tonne of MSW of net power to besold to the grid. Existing WTE facilitieswith mass-burn technologies, such asthose found in Europe and the currentlyoperating Burnaby WTE facility typi-cally achieve power outputs of about0.6 MWh/tonne of MSW. Landfills withlandfill gas and capture systems gener-ally produce less power than WTE facil-ities, with the power load spread over amuch longer period of time.

While Plasco has made ambitious pre-dictions about how much energy its fa-cilities will produce, it is unclear at this

point whether or not these predictionsare realistic. The Ottawa demonstrationproject has produced only a small quan-tity of power to date, and has not yetprovided reliable data to assess the en-ergy potential of the technology. As pre-viously noted, Plasco has reported thatthe Ottawa demonstration site has pro-duced 5.1 MWh from 85 tonnes ofprocessed waste. This is an average of.06 MWh/tonne of waste processed,whereas the company is promising 1MWh/tonne of waste processed.

The amount of energy that can be pro-duced from a unit of MSW is directlyrelated to the quantity of embedded en-ergy within that waste. When MSW isprocessed in a WTE facility, the vastmajority of energy is derived from car-bon sourced within specific items in theMSW. However, diversion programswith high capture rates, which should beconsidered a prerequisite for any wastedisposal option, would remove a largepercentage of this carbon from theMSW. Plastics are one of the most im-portant sources of energy when MSW isprocessed at a WTE facility, since plas-tic is produced from fossil fuels. Whileviable markets do not exist for everytype of plastic in every situation at thistime, significantly higher plastic diver-sion rates are possible and should be fa-cilitated by regional governments suchas Metro Vancouver. New EPR pro-grams and the increasing price of fossil

Source: Plasco Energy Group, personal communication

Table 3 – Claimed Residual Products from Plasco’s Conversion Process

Residual Product Quantity per tonne of MSW

“Vitrified Slag (Construction Material)” 150 kg

“Agricultural Sulphur” 5 kg

“Commercial Salt” 5–10 kg

“Heavy Metals and Particulate” 1.3 kg

“Potable Water” 300 L


fuels may provide further incentives forplastics diversion in the future. It haseven been suggested that landfills maybe mined in the future to recover valu-able items such as plastics, as the eco-nomics of recycling change with theprice of oil. While this remains a theo-retical option in Canada, destroyingthese same materials in a WTE facilitywould limit this opportunity.

Other carbon-based items in MSW thathold high energy potential, such as tires,residual oil, wood waste and paper, areall items that are either covered by ex-isting EPR programs or are being tar-geted by Metro Vancouver for increaseddiversion rates. If and when diversionrates of products such as plastics, tiresand paper improve the energy potentialof the residual MSW will decrease dra-matically. In a regional governmentwith high diversion rates, the energy po-tential of WTE facilities will not be ashigh as proponents such as Plascoclaim. This fact is important when con-sidering the true environmental per-formance of a WTE facility, since thequantity of energy that a WTE facilitycan produce is inextricably tied to itsGHG intensity (through the GHG emis-sions it displaces from the provincialgrid).

2.4 RESIDUAL PRODUCTS FROMTHE CONVERSION PROCESS

Despite some misconceptions, a WTEfacility cannot make waste “disappear.”

Every kilogram of MSW that is fed intoa WTE facility must eventually leavethat facility, albeit in a different form.The material is converted into differentbyproducts such as air emissions, GHGemissions, steam, syngas (in the case ofgasification), water, and residual wasteproducts. The waste products from atraditional incinerator are typically bot-tom ash and fly ash, which are sent tolandfills, and often contain high levelsof toxic materials. For every tonne ofMSW processed at a traditional inciner-ator, such as the Burnaby WTE facility,up to 200 kg of fly ash and bottom ashrequires landfilling, which representsabout 20% of the mass of the originalwaste. This waste, which is often toxic,can pose serious problems in landfills.For example, some of the waste materi-als from the Burnaby WTE facility thatwere buried in the Coquitlam Landfillwere recently found to be leaching fromthe site and had to be unearthed at sig-nificant cost.

In its bid to distance itself from tradi-tional incinerator technology, Plasco hasasserted that, in one of its facilities,“99.8% of waste is converted to cleanfuel and valuable products.” One Plascoadvertisement asks the question; “Whynot recycle 100% of your waste?” Ac-cording to the company, one tonne ofMSW is converted to 2600 Nm3 of syn-gas and residual products, listed inTable 3. The product categories are in-cluded in quotations to illustrate thewording that Plasco utilizes in its mar-

keting. Each product category is discussed in more detail below.

2.4.1 Waste Products – HeavyMetals

Of the residual products listed in Table3, the heavy metals are the only cate-gory that Plasco considers a true “wasteproduct.” While 1.3 kg of heavy metalsper tonne of MSW processed may notseem like a large quantity, this repre-sents the production of about 520 kg ofheavy metals a day (assuming a facilitywith a daily capacity of 400 tonnes ofMSW) or about 190 tonnes a year.

The company is quick to point out thatthese heavy metals are not a byproductof the Plasco conversion process per se,but result from the disposal of heavymetal containing products such as bat-teries, electronics and compact fluores-cent light-bulbs (CFLs). The quantity ofheavy metals found in the MSW will,therefore, change the quantity of heavymetals that are collected in the conver-sion process. According to Plasco, theseheavy metals will be collected together,placed within a secure container andsent to a “controlled disposal site” andnot a regular landfill.

More of these heavy metals can be di-verted from the MSW stream througheffective regional diversion and EPRprograms, and by redesigning the waywe produce common consumer goods.For example, the upcoming B.C. EPR

In almost all of these historical cases, the byproducts were provento be too toxic and had to be landfilled. Agricultural companiesand farmers, for example, may not be interested in a source ofsulphur as a fertilizer if there is any chance of contamination from

items such as heavy metals.

program on mercury-containing prod-ucts will help divert heavy metals fromB.C.’s MSW in the future. To the extentthat these heavy metals are still presentin the MSW it may be more environ-mentally appropriate to collect thesematerials and dispose of them through ahazardous waste company, as Plascohas proposed. If this same waste is land-filled, the heavy metals will be mixedwithin the MSW, increasing the likeli-hood of some of the metals leachinginto groundwater

Nevertheless, it is important to recallthat when MSW is processed in a WTEfacility, including a Plasco facility,some heavy metals are released into theair shed as airborne emissions. As dis-cussed in section 2.1.3, however, a land-fill with a gas capture system alsoproduces airborne emissions of thesesame metals, though generally not asmany. If a Plasco facility performs aspredicted, heavy metals will primarilybe an airborne issue. In a landfill, heavymetals are primarily a water pollutionissue. It is not clear which of these sce-narios is preferable from a human orecological health perspective. The prior-ity, therefore, needs to be in removingthese metals from the MSW stream inthe first place.

2.4.2 “Recoverable” Products

According to Plasco, its conversionprocess will produce three additionalby-products, each of which the com-pany classifies as “recoverable” andconsiders “recycled materials.”

For every tonne of waste processed,Plasco estimates that 150 kg of vitrifiedslag is created. This slag is a dense solidand is the equivalent byproduct of thebottom ash and fly ash that is created ina mass-burn incinerator. According toPlasco the difference is that its slag is



not toxic and will not have to be land-filled. According to Plasco’s “initialtests,” this slag is “safer than a pop bot-tle” and completely stable, non-leach-able and non-toxic. The companyasserts that this slag, when produced inlarge quantities, will represent a valu-able “construction aggregate” that canbe used in road building or to displaceconcrete in construction. Plasco expectsthis slag to be sold and have an esti-mated value of about $20 a tonne inCalifornia (according to letters of inter-est submitted to Plasco in a Request forProposals) and about $9 a tonne in On-tario.

The other two “recoverable” productsthat the company claims the conversionprocess creates are salt and sulphur. Forevery tonne of waste processed, 5 to 10kilograms of “commercial salt” is cre-ated which, according to Plasco, can besold and used in road maintenance andthe chlorine industry. Five kilograms of“agricultural sulphur” is produced thatthe company expects to be used as anagricultural fertilizer.

Taken together, the slag, salt and sul-phur represent about 16 % of the totalmass of the initial MSW that wasprocessed. A facility that processes ap-proximately 400 tonnes of MSW perday will produce about 60 tonnes ofslag, 20 to 40 tonnes of salt and 20tonnes of sulphur daily. In a year this fa-cility will produce 21,900 tonnes ofslag, 730-1,460 tonnes of salt and 730tonnes of sulphur. Clearly, if viable mar-kets cannot be found for these materials,or if the materials are proven in time tonot be as safe as Plasco predicts, thisrepresents a very large quantity of wastethat would still require disposal.

Since so little waste has been processedat the Ottawa demonstration facility todate, and since Plasco has not yet run a

commercial scale facility processingMSW, it is impossible to substantiatePlasco’s claims concerning the quantityand composition of its processes’ resid-ual products. For the sake of this argu-ment, even if one assumes that theprocess will produce the quantity ofresiduals that the company claims, themore critical issue will still remain; theexact composition of these materials.

As WTE companies have come andgone over the last few decades, many ofthem have promised that the byproductsof their facilities will be sold as aggre-gate. In almost all of these historicalcases the byproducts were proven to betoo toxic and had to be landfilled. Thehistory of waste management recom-mends caution in accepting Plasco’sclaims concerning the economic viabil-ity of their residual products. Agricul-tural companies and farmers, forexample, may not be interested in asource of sulphur as a fertilizer if thereis any chance of contamination fromitems such as heavy metals that arefound in MSW.

Plasco’s technology would have to per-form as advertised, 100% of the time,before these materials could actuallyenter the marketplace as viable productsas opposed to waste. If the technologyperforms as the company claims, Plascowill have broken new ground in theWTE field. If, instead, this waste isdeemed too toxic or too potentiallytoxic these materials will have to be dis-posed of, as with the residuals fromother WTE facilities, eliminating one ofthe key differences Plasco promotes be-tween theirs and traditional WTE tech-nology.

2.4.3 “Potable Water”

Plasco asserts that its facilities would bea net-producer of clean, potable water.


Any water required by the conversionprocess is contained within the MSW,primarily in organics. Even if organicswere diverted from the MSW, it is stillassumed that the process would not re-quire water. For every tonne of wasteprocessed, Plasco calculates that 300litres of water will be extracted. Thisnumber will decrease with higher diver-sion rates of organics, but represents al-most one third of the initial mass of theMSW. One day of operation, again as-suming a 400 tonne/day facility, wouldnet about 120,000 litres of what the Ot-tawa demonstration’s project’s Certifi-cate of Approval for Waste classifies asLiquid Industrial Waste. A year of oper-ation would net about 48.3 millionlitres.

Plasco claims that this water is cleanedcompletely before it leaves the facilityand meets potable standards in any mu-nicipality. The company is so confidentthat it asserts the water could be usedfor irrigation or industrial purposes, de-pending on local demand. If a local usecannot be found for the water it is as-sumed that it will be added to the mu-nicipal sewage system. This would stillpose a cost to the regional government,since the water would likely have to beprocessed in the region’s water treat-ment facility, though this cost would notbe large.

Again, Plasco’s claims concerning itswastewater are unproven. If the waterfrom a commercial facility is proven tobe potable, there likely will not be amajor concern. If, instead, the water isshown to be contaminated, disposalcould prove considerably more difficultand expensive.

2.5 THE ZERO WASTEALTERNATIVE

Sections 2.1 to 2.4 above have analyzedthe expected environmental perform-ance of a Plasco facility and, where ap-propriate, compared this performance tothat of a typical landfill and WTE facil-ity. Such analysis, however, only exam-ines the last stage in the life cycle of theproducts that become MSW. Whenlandfills and WTE facilities are com-pared according to environmental crite-ria, the environmental impacts of everyother stage in a product’s life cycleother than disposal are ignored. It isonly by examining every stage in aproduct’s life cycle that the true envi-ronmental performance of differentwaste management strategies can becompared. Plasco and, to some extent,Metro Vancouver have attempted tolimit the debate by confining it to acomparison between landfills and WTEfacilities. The real debate, however, isbetween disposal, in any form, and ZeroWaste initiatives.

According to the Zero Waste Interna-tional Alliance, “Zero Waste is a goalthat is both pragmatic and visionary, toguide people to emulate sustainable nat-ural cycles, where all discarded materi-als are resources for others to use. ZeroWaste means designing and managingproducts and processes to reduce thevolume and toxicity of waste and mate-rials, conserve and recover all re-sources, and not burn or bury them.” Intheir present form, Zero Waste strate-gies include efforts to reduce, reuse andrecycle materials and Extended Pro-ducer Responsibility Programs. Thereare endless possibilities for how ZeroWaste strategies and programs can bedesigned and implemented in the future.

Recent studies by environmental scien-tists and economists have shown thatthe environmental savings of a ZeroWaste approach to waste managementvastly outweigh those of either landfill-ing or processing waste in a WTE facil-ity.18 While reducing and reusing wasteachieves the greatest environmentalsavings, recycling also nets significantenvironmental gains. A recent life cycleanalysis by Jeffrey Morris, for example,illustrates that recycling commonhousehold materials such as paper andplastic imposes significantly lower en-

When landfills and WTE facilities are compared according toenvironmental criteria, the environmental impacts of every otherstage in a product’s life cycle, other than disposal, are ignored. It isonly by examining every stage in a product’s life cycle that the trueenvironmental performance of different waste management

strategies can be compared.

18 See, for example, Morris, 2005 and Denison, 1996.19 Morris, 2005.

vironmental burdens than disposal ofsolid waste, even if energy is recoveredin a WTE facility or landfill.19 This con-clusion holds true for a wide range ofenvironmental categories, including airpollution, GHG emissions, acidifica-tion, human toxicity and ecological tox-icity. Most of these environmentalsavings result from decreased energyusage since recycling materials con-sumes far less energy in the life cycle ofany one product than extracting virginresources to produce that same product.These findings have been further sub-stantiated by a large and influential re-port commissioned by EnvironmentCanada entitled Determination of theImpact of Waste Management Activitieson Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2005Update.20


It is vastly more energy efficient to re-cycle materials such as plastics andpaper than it is to process them in aWTE facility. Recent studies by MetroVancouver show that these types of ma-terials still comprise a significant por-tion of the region’s MSW. Increaseddiversion rates, therefore, should beMetro Vancouver’s highest priority.Without these types of materials and thecarbon they contain a WTE facility willnot be able to achieve the energy outputexpected, as outlined in section 2.3. AWTE facility requires the carbon in ma-terials such as paper, plastic and tires toproduce energy, yet much more energywould be conserved if these materialswere recycled than would be producedif they were destroyed in a WTE facil-ity. Therefore, processing materials in aWTE facility represents a lost ‘opportu-nity cost’ of energy savings. With theseenergy savings come GHG and air pol-lution reductions that outweigh those ofeither landfilling or processing waste ina WTE facility.


20 ICF, 2005.


3.1 WTE AND ZERO WASTE

The new generation of WTE technology,including the technology proposed byPlasco, is being trumpeted as a method tomove North American societies towardsthe goal of Zero Waste. Plasco refers to itsdemonstration project in Ottawa as a“Partnership for a Zero Waste Ottawa”and the company uses the internet domainnames zerowasteottawa.com and ze-rowastevancouver.com. Louis Circeo ofthe Georgia Tech Research Institute haswritten that “plasma arc technology offersa unique opportunity to achieve the ‘zerowaste’ goal by providing the capability toeliminate the need for land disposal…andto recover energy from municipal solidwaste and other organic wastes while pro-ducing salable products.”21

In reality, many of the basic characteris-tics of WTE facilities are inherently con-tradictory to the principles of ZeroWaste. Some of these issues are outlinedbelow.

WTE facilities require a constant streamof MSW, which may reduce regionalgovernments’ incentive to increase diver-sion rates and prevail upon the provinceto adopt new EPR programs.

The goal of any waste management pro-gram should be the elimination of waste.WTE facilities create economic disincen-tives to eliminating waste.

WTE facilities are often extremely ex-pensive to construct and operate, which

can divert money from other waste man-agement programs such as recycling.22Plasco’s promise of low tipping fees isbased on many factors that may not holdtrue in B.C.

Reductions in MSW flows to a WTE facil-ity reduce the energy outputs of these facil-ities and the public may be unclear as tothe benefits of reducing the waste stream.

WTE facilities destroy valuable resourcesthat can be recycled or composted forgreater net environmental savings.

WTE is based on a linear system of re-source extraction, production, consumptionand disposal and does not facilitate a movetowards closed-loop production.

These arguments suggest that it is not thespecific WTE technology that is the prob-lem, but the very philosophy that a WTEfacility represents. As Dr. Paul Connett hassaid; “even if we made incineration safe,we would never make it sensible or sus-tainable. It simply does not make sensespending so much money destroying re-sources we should be sharing with the fu-ture.”

All of these arguments may not hold trueall of the time in Metro Vancouver. It is notnecessarily the case, for example, that newWTE facilities within Metro Vancouverwill have any bearing on the province’sadoption of new and effective EPR pro-grams, since different levels of governmentare responsible for these two tasks. Thereis no doubt, however, that the construction

COMPATIBILITY WITH ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES

3.0 COMPATIBILITY WITH ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES

While it is important to examine the environmental performance of new WTE technology according to specific environ-mental categories, including air pollution, GHG emissions and energy savings, it is equally important to considerwhether or not WTE facilities are compatible with the basic principles of Zero Waste. Moving society towards the goal

of Zero Waste needs to be the primary objective of any waste management program. As section 2.5 discussed, such an approachwill achieve greater environmental savings than a WTE facility. Given this conclusion, the question to ask is if WTE facilities canplay a role in the move towards Zero Waste? Or, are the two concepts mutually exclusive?

21 Circeo, 2007.22 Morris, 2006.

of multiple WTE facilities designed to dis-pose of hundreds of thousands of tons ofMSW will have a bearing on future incen-tives to encourage Zero Waste in MetroVancouver.

Plasco has publicly stated that it wouldhave no issue with Metro Vancouver re-ducing the amount of MSW it delivers toits WTE facilities, however Plasco wouldreserve the right to bring in MSW fromoutside the region to keep the facilities fedat the operational rate for which they werebuilt. This conflicts with the previouslystated position that its facilities are modu-lar in nature and can be added to or re-duced in size as required.

At the same time, landfill contracts canprovide many of the same disincentives toZero Waste as Waste to Energy facilities. If a regional district, for example, does notown its landfill they may be locked into acontractual agreement that requires delivering a certain tonnage every year. If,on the other hand, the government ownsthe landfill, it has a vested interest in recouping their capital costs and ensuringthe landfill remains economically viable.Securing a new landfill and signing a contract that requires a massive tonnage ayear, be it in Cache Creek, Ashcroft or anyother location, would also limit futurecommitments to Zero Waste planning. This is why the debate needs to be expanded beyond the dated landfill versusWTE facility paradigm.

If Plasco’s environmental claims canbe proven by a real operational track-record, WTE technology will cer-

tainly have improved substantially.However, Plasco’s claims concerningair emissions, energy potential andresidual materials remain unproven andthe Ottawa demonstration project willrequire more time to substantiate mostof the company’s predictions.

When analyzed according to environ-mental performance, there is no clear“winner” between today’s two majorwaste disposal options — landfills witha gas collection system and WTE facili-ties — even if Plasco’s technology per-forms as predicted. For example, bothlandfills and WTE facilities release airpollutants. For some parameters, land-fills release more emissions. For othercategories, such as heavy metals, WTEfacilities are generally a larger source.Initial research suggests that modernWTE facilities will release fewer GHGemissions than a landfill, though therange of uncertainty left by unansweredquestions surrounding biogenic carbonand avoided emissions remains muchlarger than this difference. In addition,future changes to the MSW stream fromincreased diversion of organics andplastics, as well as expected changes tothe province’s energy system, will fur-ther blur the GHG intensity differencesbetween the two disposal options.

If, instead, one examines the entire lifecycle of the products that make upMSW, and does not focus solely on thedisposal stage of this process, it is clearthat there are other waste managementstrategies that can achieve higher envi-ronmental standards than either landfill-ing or WTE. A Zero Waste strategy thatrelies on reducing, reusing and recy-cling waste will conserve more energy,produce fewer air pollutants and GHGemissions, and will help solve the resid-

CONCLUSION


ual problem still present in any WTEscenario.

The existing disposal capacity at theBurnaby WTE facility and the Vancouver Landfill could potentiallymeet the disposal needs of Metro Vancouver. However, this would requireboth an ambitious Zero Waste programto expand the current diversion rate andwillingness by the City of Vancouver toshare its landfill capacity with othermunicipalities within the region. If thelatter were the case, then the two aforementioned facilities would have anannual disposal capacity of one milliontonnes of MSW.23 This capacity wouldbe adequate to meet the needs of the region until at least the date of the Vancouver Landfill closure planned for2040. With the funds required for MetroVancouver to build and operate newWTE facilities, a host of groundbreak-ing Zero Waste initiatives could insteadbe introduced. These initiatives wouldensure that the region’s annual disposalrate does not exceed one million tonnesand would have the eventual goal ofnegating the need to landfill at all. Howthose initiatives would be developedand deployed requires additional research beyond the scope of this document.


Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League,2002, Waste Gasification: Impacts on theEnvironment and Public Health. Accessedat: http://www.bredl.org/pdf/wastegasifi-cation.pdf

Circeo, Louis, 2007, Achieving “ZeroWaste” with Plasma Arc Technology(power point presentation), Georgia TechResearch Institute. Accessed at:www.p2pays.org/ref/03/02918.ppt

Coalition Against Danford Megadump,2006, The Case for Plasma Gasificationas a Primary Means of ManagingOutaouais Waste by Converting it into En-ergy. Accessed at: http://www.savedan-ford.com/index.php?&PG=actions/pressreleases&SB=actions/pressreleases&LG=en&DOC=a011

Decommissioning Consulting Services Lim-ited, 2008, Monthly Engineer’s Report[s]:Plasco Trail Road Gasification ProcessDemonstration Project. Accessed at:http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/Trail-Road/

Denison, Richard, 1996, “EnvironmentalLife-Cycle Comparisons of Recycling,Landfilling, and Incineration,” Annual Re-view of Energy and the Environment (21):191-237. Accessed at: http://www.incener-itori.org/denison.pdf

Environment Canada, 2008, 2006 Facilityand Substance Information for MaximPower Inc. – Vancouver Landfill Genera-tion, National Pollutant Release Inventory(NPRI). Accessed at:http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/querysite/facil-ity_substance_summary_e.cfm?opt_npri_id=0000020042&opt_report_year=2006

EPA, 2002, Solid Waste Management andGreenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assess-

REFERENCES

ment of Emissions and Sinks. Accessed at:http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html

Hogg, Dominic, 2006, A Changing Climatefor Energy From Waste?, prepared forFriends of the Earth by Eunomia Researchand Consulting. Accessed at:http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/changing_climate.pdf

ICF Consulting, 2005, Determination of theImpact of Waste Management Activities onGreenhouse Gas Emissions: 2005 Update.Accessed at: http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/mms/canmet-mtb/mmsl-lmsm/enviro/reports/ICFfinalreport.pdfSummary available at: http://www.recy-cle.ab.ca/images/stories/Download/GHG_Impacts_Summary.pdf

IPCC, 2006, IPCC Guidelines for NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5:Waste. Accessed at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Vol-ume5/V5_5_Ch5_IOB.pdf

Metro Vancouver, Feb. 2008 (revised March2008), Strategy for Updating the SolidWaste Management Plan - DiscussionDocument. Accessed at:http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/StrategyUpdat-ingSWMP.pdf

Morris, Jeffrey, 2006, Competition BetweenRecycling and Incineration. Accessed at:http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Recy-cling-And-Incineration.htm

Morris, Jeffrey, 2005, “Comparative LCAsfor Curbside Recycling Versus EitherLandfilling or Incineration with EnergyRecover,” International Journal of LifeCycle Analysis (2): 273-284.

Nenninger, Fred, 2008, Metro Vancouver

Solid Waste Management Plan Develop-ment, Presentation to RCBC Conference:June 27, 2008.

Ministry of Environment (Ontario), 2006,Certificate of Approval – Air, Number6925-6REN9E. Accessed at:http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/docs/CofA%20Air%20Official%20Dec%201%202006.pdf

Ministry of Environment (Ontario), 2006,Provisional Certificate of Approval –Waste Disposal Site Number 3166-6TYMDZ. Accessed at: http://www.ze-rowasteottawa.com/docs/NUMBER%203166-6TYMDZ.pdf

Plasco Energy Group, 2005, Plasco EnergyRecovery Demonstration Project: ProjectDescription. Accessed at:http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2005/RA05E0021.pdf

Plasco Energy Group, 2008, A Partnershipfor a Zero-Waste Ottawa Website. Ac-cessed at:http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/

Plasco Energy Group, 2008, Company Web-site. Accessed at: http://www.plascoener-gygroup.com/

Platt, Brenda et al., 2008, Stop Trashing TheClimate, Institute for Local Self-Reliance.Accessed at: http://www.stoptrashingthe-climate.org/fullreport_stoptrashingthecli-mate.pdf

RCBC, 2008, BC Municipal Solid WasteTracking Report (2006).

Sheltair Group, 2008, Environmental LifeCycle Assessment of Solid Waste Manage-ment: Evaluation of Two Waste DisposalScenarios for the Metro VancouverRegion, prepared for the Regional UtilityPlanning Division - Metro Vancouver.

PRIMARY RESEARCH SUBJECTS:Chris Allan – Metro Vancouver Clarissa Morawski – CM ConsultingDoreann Mayhew – City of VancouverRon Macdonald – The Sheltair GroupTimothy Edwards – Ontario Ministry of EnvironmentZakiah Kassam – Plasco Energy Group

Suite 10-119 W. Pender StreetVancouver, BC V6B 1S5 Telephone: 604-683-6009Fax: 604-683-7255

www.rcbc.bc.ca

Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option - the Recycling Council of

Documents

Transcript of Examining The Waste-to-Energy Option - the Recycling Council of