Tackling Bangalore's garbage

WTE (Waste to Energy)Or

Zero waste (Reuse, Reduce, Recycle)?

Option 1Waste to Energy

A set of technologies that uses mixed wastes as fuel to generate heat to run steam turbines which produce electrical energy.

WTE (waste to energy)

Very seductive option in an energy starved country.Does not require segregation at source.'One stop shop' solution for all waste – wet, dry recycleable, dry non-recycleable.

Sweden – WTE heaven !

Only 4 % of the trash in Sweden goes to landfills.The rest is used as fuel in its power plants.20 % of Sweden's electricity comes from waste.A lot of countries look up to Sweden as a role modelfor waste management.

Option 2Zero waste

The design and management of products and processes to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Involves Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

Wet waste Composted

Recyclable drywaste

Recycled

Non-recyclabledry waste

Eliminate – stop usingnon-recyclable materialsfor packaging or any otherapplication

Reuse, Reduce, Recycle

So which is better ?

Waste to Energy or Zero Waste ?

WTE vs. Zero waste

Zero waste

No toxic gases or ash resulting from reuse, reduce or recycle,

Wet waste gets composted into valuable fertilizer that can replace chemical fertilizers.

Paper recycling reduces deforestation.

Reduces consumption of petroleum for plastics manufacture.

Energy requirement for recycling is far less than for manufacturing from virgin material.

WTE

Toxic gases released, even with scrubbers, toxic ash to be disposed of. Impacts health of neighbouring communties.

Emit 33% more CO2 per kW than coal-fired plants.

Needs a steady supply of fuel, which is waste. Eliminates motivation to Reduce waste.

Promotes consumption of scarce and expensive natural resources and energy.

Environmental impact

WTE vs. Zero waste

Zero wasteCapital and operating costs of composting, biomethanation and recycling units are considerably less, and more distributed across different industry sectors.

Nation saves foreign exchange on import of petroleum for plastic manufacture.

Nation saves foreign exchange on import of paper pulp.

Provides cheap fertilizers to farmers that is better for the soil.

WTECapital cost of a WTE plant is twice that of a coal fired plant.

High operating costs because of environmental compliance requirements.

Requires petroleum import for generation of virgin plastic.

You burn paper that can be recycled, and import pulp to produce paper again.

Cost of twice that of a coal fired plant.

Economics

WTE vs. Zero waste

Zero waste

Poverty alleviation – can improve earnings of 15,000 waste pickers in Bangalore. (India has 1.5 Lakh waste pickers)

Promotes social empowerment of Dalit families.

Promotes social empowerment of women.

Involves communities in tackling their own waste, inculcates responsible consumption.

WTE

Promotes indiscriminate consumption among citizens.

No effect on industries' responsibility to use recyclable material.

Promotes caste divide – waste is unclean, people who handle waste are unclean.

Safe operations not possible in the Indian context due to poor enforcement of environmental safeguards.

Social impact

Cost of energy production

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. Excerpted from Table 2-5, page 2-10 of Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants (November 2010)O&M= Operating and Maintenance.

Waste incineration (WTE) is more expensive thannuclear energy, as well as solar , wind and coal

CO2 emissions by energy source

*Nuclear plants produce no CO2, hence not in this comparisonSource: U.S. EPA, 2007, epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/airemissions.html

Energy generation from waste incineration isdirtier than from other fuels*

EU Resource Efficiency Roadmap, approved by European Parliament 24th May 2012(32) (…) taking into account the waste hierarchy and the need to bring residual waste close to zero; calls on the Commission, therefore, to make proposals by 2014 with a view to gradually introducing a general ban on waste landfill at European level and for the phasing-out, by the end of this decade, of incineration of recyclable and compostable waste; this should be accompanied by appropriate transition measures including the further development of common standards based on life-cycle thinking; calls on the Commission to revise the 2020 recycling targets of the Waste Framework Directive; is of the opinion that a landfill tax – as has already been introduced by some Member States – could also help achieve the above ends;

EU is moving away from WTE

Sweden ? Recycling heaven ? Really ?

Economically, Sweden would be better off recycling and reusing its waste instead of burning it.

Sweden is generating energy at with far more atmospheric pollution than with traditional coal or oil fired power plants.

Sweden does not have enough waste to feed its hungry WTE plants, and is now having to import waste.

The European Parliament has recommended moving away from WTE.

Energy recovery by burning waste is the worst possible optionto dispose of waste, next to dumping.

Waste management hierarchy

Towards Zero WastePune, San Francisco

Pune, IndiaZero waste program run by waste pickers' cooperative. Collection,segregation, sales of recyclablewaste.7000 members - 92 % are Dalit women.Dramatic change in their incomes, more empowered.Get health insurance, low interest loans.City saves Rs. 15 Cr. a year because of lowerWaste disposal cost.

San Francisco, USAHas a Zero waste program.78 % waste is reused or recycled. Target 90 % by 2020.

Let's decide wisely

The waste disposal issue is not about making Bangalore look beautiful for visitors and investors. It is not about 'Not In My Backyard' and ruining someone else's backyard. Only a small mind will think this way.

It is about fixing the issue with a holistic solution that doesnot ruin anyone's backyard – not Bangalore, not Mavallipura, not Mandur. A WTE plant will have to be located somewhere, and it is going to pollute someone's backyard with toxic gases and residual ash.

We're just starting down a path to a sensible waste management solution, and this is the time to lay the correct foundation.

Easy decision to make !

1 Starting a Zero waste program that is beneficial to the environment, is economically self-sustaining and will improve the lives of thousands of women and dalit families.

2 Burning our waste to generate a measly amount of energy, in the process wasting scarce raw material that can be reused or recycled, while polluting the air and ground in the process.

Sources of data

The battle of incinerators vs. Recyclershttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-battle-of-incinerators-vs-recyclers-1239360.html

Environmental life-cycle comparisons of recycling, landfilling and incinerationhttp://www.airqualitymatters.ca/wp-content/uploads/Richard-A-Denison.pdf

Incinerators: Myths vs. Facts about “Waste to Energy”http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Incinerator_Myths_vs_Facts%20Feb2012.pdf

Zero waste strategyhttp://www.belkorp.ca/VBT_090723_SRM.pdf

On the road to Zero waste – successes and lessons from around the worldhttp://www.no-burn.org/downloads/On%20the%20Road%20to%20Zero%20Waste.pdf

GAIA - Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternativeshttp://www.no-burn.org/

San Franciso – Dept of environment Zero waste pagehttp://www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste

The author is a core part of the Sada Zero movement in the locality of Sadashivanagar, Bangalore. Sada Zero has been running a waste segregation and recycling movement for the past 2 years in half the locality, with 70 % of the residents segregating waste even though it is voluntary.

Waste collectors collect, segregate and sell the recyclable waste, and keep the earnings.

Volunteers in Sada Zero work hands-on with the collectors – go door to door with them, actually collect the waste, train residents, convince them to segregate, etc.

Some Sada Zero presentationshttp://www.slideshare.net/zerowaste

The author

Disclaimer : The opinions in this document are the author's own.

GV Dasarathidasarathigv@gmail.com