Proposed Waste-to-Energy Facility: Trash to Treasure?

On East Lake Road in Erie, Pennsylvania, there is a 'brownfield' site. Such sites are commonly abandoned or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where further use or expansion of the site is inhibited by environmental contamination, whether real or perceived. This means that the site on East Lake Road, which until recently had housed the International Paper company for a century, may be unfit for many environmentally-friendly uses, such as the 2006 proposal of a juice company based on the spot, which fell through in part because of the site's brownfield status. A recent 2007 proposal, however, promises to give a purpose to the site which may be 'greener' than the site has been for a century. Erie Renewable Energy, LLC (ERE) plans to convert the site from an eyesore to... well, another eyesore, perhaps, but a useful one. If ERE gets its way, the site may be the new home of an industrial Waste-to-Energy facility.

A Waste-to-Energy facility operates on a simple concept. A quantity of waste matter, in the case of the ERE proposed facility used car tires, is incinerated as fuel or is converted to fuel. This fuel may then be used in two distinct ways. The first is the consumption of the fuel (or the directly incinerated waste matter) to boil water with which to power steam-operated turbines. These turbines run generators which output electrical power, which may then be stored or placed on the 'grid' for consumption by residential or commercial entities. The second, albeit less common, use for the fuel is to redistribute it as a usable fuel commodity; such is the case in which organic waste matter is converted to ethanol and sold.

There are a variety of technologies available for the conversion of waste to energy. These are separated into two main groups: thermal and non-thermal technologies. Thermal technologies include gasification, pyrolysis (also involved in gasification), and plasma arc waste disposal (which is still in early developmental stages). Non-thermal technologies include mechanical-biological treatments such as anaerobic digestion of the waste matter. The proposed ERE Waste-to-Energy facility will use the thermal technology of gasification, which is a process that converts carbonaceous materials - biomass fuels and petroleum products, mainly - into carbon monoxide and hydrogen in a three step process.

The first step in gasification is pyrolysis, the process which occurs as heat is applied to the waste matter. Volatile gases are released from the waste matter; the remainder of solid material is called char. The volatile gases released from pyrolysis as well as some of the char products are then combusted as they react with oxygen, providing heat for the subsequent gasification of the material. The gasification itself occurs when the char reacts with carbon dioxide and steam to produce carbon monoxide and diatomic hydrogen. This resultant gas mixture may then be combusted in a more efficient manner than the original waste matter to form electricity, or it may be sequestered and sold as a fuel commodity.

This all seems to be well and good at first appearance. The ERE estimates that 200 construction jobs active over the 18-month construction period will be created for the development of the new Waste-to-Energy facility; afterwards, 60 full-time jobs will need to be filled by Erie citizens. Penelec and the ERE are in talks for Penelec to purchase the electric generated at the facility and resell it to commercial enterprises and residential customers. Cheap energy, less waste, and more jobs are always a good thing, right? In this case, there may be a two-fold price to pay which outweighs these benefits: air pollution and the resultant ash from incineration.

Air pollution may result from the gasification process to be used at the ERE facility. The major byproduct of gasification is carbon monoxide, a gas which when inhaled may prevent the absorption of oxygen in the bloodstream. Symptoms of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning include flu-like effects and headaches with smaller amounts of CO; larger amounts can result in central nervous system and heart damage. CO can have serious effects on a the fetus of a pregnant woman, up to and including failure to carry to full-term. Carbon monoxide is useful, however, for many industrial processes. If the ERE facility sequestered its CO output, this would prevent a large amount of air pollution.

Aside from carbon monoxide, Waste-to-Energy facilities may produce minute particles of mineral residue ash waste called 'fly ash' which may contribute to air pollution if not filtered diligently. This inorganic, incombustible matter contains trace concentrations of the following heavy metals: nickel, arsenic, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, lead, and radium, among others. Though the EPA regulates the maximum fly ash amounts allowed in exhaust to less than 1% of ash produced, the prospect of the presence of a waste product such as this in the city air is not a pleasant one. Fly ash is used in the production of concrete; it may be used for soil stabilization and agriculture; and, it is used as 'flowable fill', low-density backfill which is self-leveling and self-compacting. These uses, nevertheless, may not merit the production of any amount of fly ash into city air.

Air pollution would be one problem presented by the ERE facility; the other problem is the end waste product of bottom ash from the incomplete combustion of waste fuel materials. This bottom ash contains the same elements as the fly ash produced and potentially released into the atmosphere, but in much larger quantities. It is not classified by the EPA as a hazardous waste material, and it may be disposed of in sanitary landfills. The argument against bottom ash produced by Waste-to-Energy facilities is that, while it contains the same toxic materials as the original waste product (minus whatever has been released into the atmosphere or disintegrated), they are in a much more concentrated and easily miscible form. In this form it is much easier for the toxic materials to be leached through landfills and potentially leak into groundwater systems. While the consequences may not be as direct as with air pollution, this concentration of toxic materials would not be a thing at which to scoff.

Is Waste-to-Energy disposal a responsible option for Erie's, let alone the nation's, waste disposal and energy needs? Perhaps, with the perfection of Waste-to-Energy technology and disposal methods, the answer could be yes. If scientists can sequester 100% of the carbon monoxide byproduct, capture and reuse or convert the fly ash and bottom ash into useful or at least harmless materials, then the ERE Waste-to-Energy facility will be for the better. For today, however, Erie has enough free landfill space in which to dump its garbage that it can afford to wait a while longer while science irons out the wrinkles in this potentially beneficial technology. Perhaps, in the long run, the best idea is just to waste less and solve this problem at the source.