It can take five to seven years to implement a new facility. Siting, permitting, and funding will continue to be issues, as they are for most solid waste facilities, but can be addressed and overcome.

By Robert Hauser Jr.

The purpose of this article is to look forward at the solid waste management field over the next 20 years and to develop a potential vision of the waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities and other thermal conversion processes we will have in future strategies for managing solid waste. (As used herein, the term WTE facilities will also include other thermal conversion processes.) Determining future trends in the waste management industry, identifying driving forces that may impact the future of WTE Facilities, and resolving key issues that must be addressed to obtain that future are all very difficult to determine. The view presented in this article is just one of many potential futures.

In the United States, the WTE industry has not shown any growth over the past 15 years, until very recently. In fact, the industry has contracted. Yet in other parts of the world, notably Europe and Asia, the industry is growing. Are these areas a model for future waste management in the United States or is the United States unique? Is the United States facing a similar situation or can we expect a different set of driving forces to be in effect in this country and shape the industry into a much different model? These are questions that must be addressed not only by the WTE industry, but also by all solid waste professionals.

History of WTE
The modern WTE industry in this country started in the early 1970s with the advent of modern waste-heat recovery boilers producing steam and/or electricity for sale, modern grate systems, and air pollution control equipment. Through the ’70s and early ’80s, industry growth was fueled by several factors, including the implementation of alternative energy sources following the oil embargo and sky-high oil prices; federal and state energy legislation encouraging the development of small power producers; and requiring utilities to purchase the power generated by these facilities. Various forms of tax/funding mechanisms were created to assist in developing these projects.

At the same time, landfill regulations were being rewritten (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976), which significantly tightened landfill rules and regulations. This resulted in the closure of a large number of landfills across the country, raising concerns over the potential future lack of landfill space.

During this period, the EPA was strongly encouraging WTE facilities, as well as funding demonstration grants for potential new conversion technologies. This encouragement was an attempt at limiting landfill usage and sponsoring new energy sources.

The above factors led to the largest period of growth for the WTE industry during the eighties. The WTE technology came to the forefront as other conversion technologies failed due to either technical or financial reasons. The industry quickly evolved into one led by the private sector in terms of full service contracts (design, build, operate under a long-term contract). These facilities were a combination of publicly owned and privately owned facilities with almost all of them being privately operated. This was affected by both the lack of federal funding for solid waste projects that had occurred in the water and wastewater industries, which encouraged public operation, ownership; and the lack of an existing public infrastructure for combustion facilities due to the closing of most publicly owned incinerators in the early 1970s as a result of the requirements of the original Clean Air Act. A large number of WTE facilities were constructed during this period, most of which continue to operate today.

In the early 1990s, a combination of factors resulted in an almost complete halt in the growth of the WTE industry. A major factor was the significant growth in landfill capacity. As a result of the concerns over the lack of landfill capacity, the private sector developed a number of large regional mega landfills. This enabled communities to haul their waste long distances to relatively inexpensive landfills at a lower cost than a WTE facility. Many WTE facilities never realized its hopes for economics as energy prices neither increased nor decreased during the 1980s. This resulted in a substantial increase in the long-term costs associated with a new facility.

Also, recycling became institutionalized in many states as rules and regulations to promote and require recycling were passed in the mid and late eighties. This soon led to the misconception that WTE facilities and recycling were not compatible. The purported basis for this was that WTE facilities relied on “put or pay” contracts for their waste supply, thereby discouraging recycling of these materials. While there was never any real basis for this argument, it became a strong public perception.

Finally, issues were raised regarding air emissions from WTE facilities, while questions were raised regarding whether ash was a hazardous material requiring extensive regulation. Air pollutants of concern included dioxins, mercury, and other heavy metals, as well as acid gases and nitrogen oxides.

The combination of the above factors halted growth in the WTE industry.

Current Status
At the current time, there are 89 WTE facilities operating in the United States. These facilities produce power equivalent to the needs of almost 2 million homes. While the period of the nineties showed no growth in the WTE industry, there are several important changes affecting the industry that will impact the future development of WTE facilities. Most important is the substantial investment made to upgrade the air pollution control systems and related significant reduction in emissions from WTE facilities prompted by the 1990 reauthorization of the Clean Air Act. WTE facilities have the lowest emissions among all electric generating facilities that combust material as their source of energy. The EPA has also reported that WTE facilities are one of the cleanest sources of power generation based upon pounds of emissions per kilowatt-hour generated. Many environmental issues, such as ash management, have also been addressed. WTE facilities are very well managed with respect to environmental impacts. This has removed one of the most significant barriers to developing new WTE facilities.

The period of the 1990s also provided time to gather and assess data regarding the compatibility of WTE facilities and recycling programs. The information shows not only are they compatible, but complementary to one another. On average, communities with WTE facilities have higher recycling rates than communities without WTE facilities. To use the European model, Europe has a much higher recycling rate and far more WTE facilities than the United States and continues to build WTE facilities to manage those wastes that cannot be recycled.

As a result of these factors, the last few years have seen a change in the potential future growth of the industry. Several communities have expanded, or are in the process of expanding, their existing facilities. We have also seen the development of other thermal conversion technologies as potential, future alternatives. Further, many more communities are investigating WTE facilities, as well as other thermal conversion technologies, as part of their long-range solid waste management plans.

Future Trends
As we look to the future, what are the driving forces that will affect the solid waste management industry and role of WTE, as well as other thermal conversion technologies, in that industry? The most obvious driving force affecting many sectors of our country is global warming. It is clear that the emission of greenhouse gases must be reduced. The specific mechanisms as to how to accomplish this goal are currently under debate in this country. Almost every activity in solid waste management contributes to greenhouse gases in some way from collection, transfer, and recycling operations through processing and disposal activities.

At first glance, WTE facilities and most of the other thermal conversion technologies emit greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. However, upon investigation, WTE facilities actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to disposing of wastes that are not recycled into a landfill. WTE facilities destroy methane and other volatile gases. Methane, as a greenhouse gas, has ten times the impact of carbon dioxide. Even with gas collection systems, landfills will release some of these gases in addition to carbon dioxide. Therefore, utilizing WTE facilities can result in a net reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste management activities.

Another trend that will continue into the future is reducing the use of fossil fuels. This is not only related to the reduction of greenhouse gases, but also reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil. As discussed above, WTE provides a cleaner source of power with net gains in reducing greenhouse emissions using fuel that otherwise would be have been used in landfills.

Another developing trend concerns the development of new landfill capacity. As existing landfills close when they reach capacity, more and more communities are hauling their solid waste long distances to mega landfill facilities. With rising fuel costs, this is becoming more and more expensive, not to mention the greenhouse gases generated by the vehicles transporting the waste. Further, siting new large regional landfills is becoming more and more difficult. While many of the mega landfills have a large remaining capacity, it is unclear whether future replacement capacity will be developed at the rate required. Also, there is a developing trend among many communities towards managing their own wastes, rather than relying on haul to distant sites.

Finally, over the past few years, recycling activities in many areas have stalled, or in some cases, declined. However, the forces described above are acting to drive more reduction in waste, reuse, and recycling. This is something that must be encouraged and supported by the entire solid waste management industry.

Future Challenges
In reviewing the above trends, it is remarkable how closely they match the conditions and the situation that existed in the seventies and eighties. Many of the trends that helped drive the WTE industry in that period may have faded, but they did not go away. They have returned and continue to be factors that could help drive the industry. WTE is a proven and reliable technology with predictable costs. It can provide a reliable source of clean power from a renewable resource and result in a net reduction of GHG emissions as compared to the alternatives. WTE facilities substantially reduce landfill requirements and by siting them closer to generation sources, they can significantly reduce haul costs, fuel usage, and GHG emissions from transfer and hauling operations.

However, if WTE is going to grow in the future, there are several major challenges that must be addressed. The first and probably largest challenge is to change the public perception of WTE facilities. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, groups opposing WTE facilities for various reasons were able to create a public perception that was not challenged by the industry. This lack of action by the industry to actively address those concerns ultimately led to the termination of industry growth. Today, this issue has been recognized and various organizations, including SWANA, IWSA, and ASME, are working diligently to change the misconceptions of WTE. This effort is probably the key to successfully restoring WTE as an important part of the solid waste management hierarchy. The second key to restoring growth to the industry is that public and elected leaders have to take a longer view regarding cost, since initially, WTE facilities will likely be the higher cost alternative when compared to other options. However, over the long-term, WTE is likely to be less costly.

The first part of challenging public perception of WTE is with respect to air emissions. During the ’90s, the industry invested substantial funds in fully upgrading its air pollution control systems to meet the most stringent air quality criteria. Today, it is one of the cleanest sources of electric power generation when compared to fossil fuels, in the country. It also uses a renewable energy resource and provides a net reduction in greenhouse gases as compared to landfilling. This message must be delivered.

The second part of the challenge, and the most difficult, is fully demonstrating the compatibility of WTE and recycling programs. Recycling and WTE are both part of the hierarchy of solid waste management. We all support goals of substantially increasing recycling. However, as solid waste managers, we must recognize that solid waste continues to be generated and collected each day and has to be deposited somewhere. We have a responsibility to manage this waste on a daily basis. As we work to increase recycling and reduce the waste-requiring disposal, a large fraction of the waste will continue to require disposal. Many of the waste materials currently recycled at higher rates such as metals, glass, C&D debris, and yard waste are not even desirable for placement in a WTE facility.

While we all support increasing recycling through better funding and, where necessary and appropriate, regulatory action, there are those in the recycling community that believe that we can essentially reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal to very low levels, very quickly, thus obviating the need for WTE facilities or landfills. They propose strong mandatory/regulatory programs that will require national/state legislation and a significant increase in funding, not to mention a cultural shift in our country.

It is highly unlikely that these requirements will occur soon in this country, and even with such changes, the implementation period to achieve the goals will take a substantial period of time.

Again, Europe can serve as an indicator. They have strong regulatory requirements to recycle starting from the producers of products through the consumer and waste management industry, as well as a culture more acceptant of such requirements. Yet they still dispose of a large portion of their wastes and use WTE facilities as the primary means to manage these wastes.

As solid waste managers, we must work to increase recycling, but at the same time recognize that we have to plan to manage solid wastes into the future.

WTE facilities and recycling are compatible and are both part of a comprehensive waste management strategy. It is incumbent upon both groups to have a free, open dialogue and to work together to develop a long-term solid waste management strategy rather than confrontational discussions. I believe that this is occurring at this time, and will grow stronger in the future.

Another key issue, related to all of the above issues, is federal and state legislation directed towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other emissions, as well as legislation to reduce our dependence upon foreign energy sources. WTE must be included as a renewable energy source in any legislation and recognized for its contribution in advancing both of these goals. It must also be allowed to benefit from tax and other incentives provided to technologies/management systems.

As used herein, most of the discussion on WTE facilities is also applicable to these new processes. The history associated with new systems has certainly not been good. However, with the advances in technology, they have an opportunity to be developed and to be successful.

The absolute key to their future success is for them to be demonstrated as reliable and efficient solid waste disposal options with predictable costs. This demonstration will take time. Communities that must address near-term disposal problems must be careful about holding out for a new technology whose implementation is in the long term (if at all), or they may end up in a crisis situation to manage their wastes. It is unfortunate that there is very little public funding to assist in fully developing these new technologies, thus placing the burden totally on the private sector and those communities acting first to demonstrate their viability.

In summary, I believe that the WTE industry can meet the challenges discussed above, and that we will see a renewed growth in the industry. Many of the factors driving the solid waste market favorable to WTE are in place—or will be in place if the key issues are addressed. WTE is part of the solid waste management hierarchy, together with recycling and landfill. WTE is certainly not the right option for every community, but it is a viable option for many communities to consider. This growth is not going to happen quickly; it can take five to seven years to implement a new facility. Siting, permitting, and funding will continue to be issues, as they are for most solid waste facilities, but can be addressed and overcome. The next 10 to 20 years look to be an exciting time in our solid waste management industry.

Over 35 years ago, I began my career in solid waste management. I have thoroughly enjoyed the challenges and successes that have occurred. When I began my career, I worked on many solid waste master plans that had 20-year outlooks. These reports made many projections and technology predictions. At that time, 20 years seemed forever. Now having gone and read some of those old plans, I enjoy reviewing the projections—sometimes right and often naïve. It will be interesting to reread this article in 20 years.

Robert Hauser Jr. is the director of solid waste operations for Pinellas County (FL) Utilities.

MSW - Elements 2009