Mike Ewall: Trash Pyrolysis Is A Failed Technology

Trash Pyrolysis is a Failed Technology By Mike Ewall Energy Justice Network mike@energyjustice.net www.energyjustice.net What is pyrolysis? Pyrolysis involves heating waste or other materials in a chamber, usually by burning fossil fuels to apply heat to the outside of the chamber. It is intended to be oxygen-free, by not allowing additional outside air into the chamber, though oxygen is often present in the material, anyway. It reduces waste to gases and ash and usually uses a lower temperature range than other incinerator technologies, resulting in increased formations of toxic chemicals such as tars, dioxins, furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). This pyrolysis process is usually followed by the burning of the gases in a secondary chamber. Is it incineration? Both the European Union and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define pyrolysis as a type of incineration. The U.S. EPA has a definition of a “municipal waste combustor,” which it states is synonymous with “municipal waste incinerator” – a.k.a. “trash incinerator.” Their definition of “municipal waste combustor” includes pyrolysis. The federal regulations, at 40 CFR 60.51a, state: Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or municipal waste combustor unit: (1) Means any setting or equipment that combusts solid, liquid, or gasified MSW including, but not limited to, field-erected incinerators (with or without heat recovery), modular incinerators (starved-air or excess-air), boilers (i.e., steam-generating units), furnaces (whether suspension-fired, grate-fired, mass-fired, air curtain incinerators, or fluidized bed-fired), and pyrolysis/combustion units. Municipal waste combustors do not include pyrolysis/combustion units located at plastics/ rubber recycling units (as specified in § 60.50a(k) of this section). Municipal waste combustors do not include internal combustion engines, gas turbines, or other combustion devices that combust landfill gases collected by landfill gas collection systems. Pyrolysis/combustion unit means a unit that produces gases, liquids, or solids through the heating of MSW, and the gases, liquids, or solids produced are combusted and emissions vented to the atmosphere. Note: MSW stands for municipal solid waste (trash). Is it polluting? Yes. The limited emissions data on pyrolysis plants shows that their air emissions can be comparable to, or even more polluting than, normal trash incinerators. Trash incinerators are the most expensive and polluting way to manage waste or produce energy and are dirtier than coal power plants by most measures. In any jurisdiction, they usually rank among the top air polluters, alongside airports, coal power plants, paper mills and cement kilns. Does the technology work on waste? The technology usually does not work. Like waste gasification or plasma arc facilities, pyrolysis plants generally have not managed to run continuously or at commercial scale. They’re usually not intended for continuous operation, but run in batches, and are mainly used at a demonstration scale. Most waste pyrolysis facility proposals are brought by new LLC companies with no real history who trick local officials into subsidizing projects that fail, technically and financially. The companies often lie about their emissions, claiming zero emissions or “no smokestack.” It’s typical for them to point to projects in distant countries and pretend to have something successful going on there, though investigation usually shows that they don’t really own or operate the projects, and/or that the projects have failed. When a huge 6,000 ton per day (tpd) trash and tire pyrolysis facility was proposed in Logansport, Indiana in recent years, the developer pointed to two reference plants. Upon examination, we learned: • Undisclosed location, Germany – only 4 tpd – only operated ‘over’ 2,500 hours in 14 years (about 7 1/2 days per year) – described as “not intended for continuous operation.” • Eilenburg, Germany – 37 ton per day but did not achieve this – only ran 1,600 hours in its life – Only processed total of 2,500 tons in a year (2002) – Longest continuous run was 15 days – Contract cancelled due to financial reasons In an interview with a man who works for a U.S. patent review company, he summed it up this way: He’s been seeing pyrolysis projects for 14 years and “none of them are legitimate.” He stated that they're just splitting combustion into two steps, making it more expensive, less efficient and not any cleaner. He described the patent seekers as a steady stream of guys in their 50s-70s who worked at corporations, thought it's a great idea, and go out and promote it and get money by whatever means and get some patent coverage mainly to help get the money, but none are legitimate. Pyrolysis has been proposed a lot for use with scrap tires. The biggest cheerleaders for tire burning, the Rubber Manufacturers Association (a trade association), are even critical of tire pyrolysis, stating that: “Major tire companies like Goodyear and Firestone once invested ‘immense resources’ in pyrolysis but could not find markets for the byproducts or even a way to integrate them into their own products. And scores of start-ups have tried and failed to make money from tire pyrolysis.” They go on to state: “The road is littered with the carnage of people who were trying to make this technology viable.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has even stated that: “While technically feasible, tire pyrolysis – a process in which tires are subjected to heat in an oxygen-starved environment and converted to gas, oil and carbon char – has been inhibited by the high capital investment required and steep operating costs.” Gershman, Brickner & Bratton (GBB) is the leading incinerator promoting waste consultancy in the U.S. They regularly present on the status of the incineration industry at industry conferences. The following slide is routinely featured in their presentations. It states that pyrolysis is “high” risk – not because they think these incinerators have any environmental risk, but as a financial/investment risk due to “previous failures at scale, uncertain commercial potential; no operating experience with large-scale operations.” Where has pyrolysis been rejected in the United States? There have been many proposals for waste pyrolysis in the U.S. Nearly every proposal fails. Many are hard to know about because they die quietly, often because investors realize that it’s a bad investment and don’t provide the needed money for the project. Others fail because the local government looks at their options and realizes that it’s too risky and avoids it. Sometimes, the community has to organize to stop a proposal, and nearly every time a pyrolysis facility is proposed, it’s stopped by community opposition. In very rare cases, facilities are built, and most of them are small, pilot-scale operations that end up failing financially, technically, or for both reasons. In some cases, they propose to use waste, but find that they can’t make it work, and repurpose it for use with a more homogenous feedstock. A complete list of failed projects would be extensive. We know of many that have been proposed and never seem to have materialized, indicating failure, though it can be hard to confirm. Some confirmed cases of proposals that have failed for one of the above reasons are: Atwood, Indiana Logansport, Indiana Baltimore, Maryland Bordentown, New Jersey New York, New York Niagara Falls, New York Pearl River, New York Cleveland, Ohio Chester, Pennsylvania Crawford County, Pennsylvania Houston, Texas Burlington, Vermont Stafford, Virginia Green Bay, Wisconsin Where can I find more information? See the reports under the “Incinerators in Disguise” and “Pyrolysis” sections about half-way down the page at www.energyjustice.net/incineration What are the alternatives? Discarded materials ought to be handled by strictly following the internationally peer-reviews Zero Waste Hierarchy by the Zero Waste International Alliance. See: http://zwia.org/standards/zero-waste-hierarchy/ and www.energyjustice.net/zerowaste for more information. Pyrolysis is considered to be part of the “unacceptable” category, as it’s a form of incineration.