Covanta Reopens Tulsa Waste-to-Energy Facility

I doubt double posting here is a crime, so here goes.
Like I said, I do have my own research and sources to back up these claims, however, right after posting I followed and link and found a compelling site.

http://www.stoptrashingtheclimate.org/

"Stop Trashing the Climate provides compelling evidence that preventing waste and expanding reuse, recycling, and composting programs — that is, aiming for zero waste — is one of the fastest, cheapest, and most effective strategies available for combating climate change. This report documents the link between climate change and unsustainable patterns of consumption and wasting, dispels myths about the climate benefits of landfill gas recovery and waste incineration, outlines policies needed to effect change, and offers a roadmap for how to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within a short period."

Read more there as they make their full report available for free...that is if you wish to challenge your belief system (B.S.)

To burn or not to burn, is NOT the question. Similar arguments are made for Landfill Gas, although I don't want to go far off topic here.

I'm not talking about an ideal utopia of zero-waste (although that is a noble goal we can aim for) nor am I wanting to revert backwards to the good old pre-landfill days, of which I am way too young to remember.

You're off in pointing out that the WTE are no less efficient than other fuel-burning plants. The btu of the feedstocks are generally considerably less. BUT you also have the tremendous energy loss in the creation of a product (or more likely only product packaging) that will eventually burned at a considerable energy loss of the energy that went into the product at creation, coupled with the pollution. You also have the pollution when the original power used was derived from coal/natural gas/nuclear/etc. You aren't going to "offset" any fossil fuel from WTE as when it comes down to it, they are more of a waste OF energy.

What I mean to highlight is that we will NOT solve this problem by the burning off of a symptom. It is possible to redesign our production methods, consumption habits, and utilization of "waste" streams. Organics should be composted or used in anaerobic digestion. These tend to be the better feedstocks anyway, and burning of them is a weak but well funded opposition. Plastics, with their durability are better reused, especially since they are generally low btu paired with fossil fuel inputs. Eventually the restructuring is the solution, and WTE schemes are a financial risk and delay what will be inevitable.

In pollution terms WTE are quite awful. The ash is only inert in terms of methane because the gases have already been burned (20% max capture for landfill gas) and toxic metals are released. Ash still leaches. There's lots of PR propaganda put out by Plasma Arc, Pyrolysis, etc.

This message is long enough, but I DO have data to back these claims and look to have constructive dialogue!

WTE plants DO produce CO2, but realize that the conversion of non-recyclable Municipal Solid Waste (that is, all the stuff that's left AFTER you've pulled out the recyclable materials (cans, plastic, cardboard, newspapers, etc...) into energy via combustion reduces the airspace required in a landfill by 90%. Also, the landfill (containing only ash from combustion) is now rendered inert- that is there's no methane gas from rotting garbage to deal with during the next 50 years as you've already pulled that energy from the waste. Every ash landfill constructed represents 9 other MSW landfills that you DON'T need, and the land can be re-used as soon as it is capped.

A modern Waste-To-Energy plant is no less efficient than any other fuel-burning power plant, requiring about 10% of the gross power produced to be used in-house for combustion air and cooling fans, pumps, air compressors, hydraulics, etc. Every ton of MSW burned is a barrel of petroleum oil or natural gas that can be left in the ground. If all the landfilled waste were processed in this fashion, it would generate about 30% of the nation's electricity. Each of us throws away about 5 pounds of trash every day. Until we manage to actually create some ideal utopia where we no longer generate garbage (perhaps by accidentally bombing ourselves back to the stone-age...?) why not put it to good use?

Well, it's not "clean" and the burning of trash does more than release CO2. These facilities are better called a Waste-OF-Energy rather than waste-to. This is glaringly obvious when looking into the energy and resources put into creating a product and the small fraction of energy reclaimed from incinerating that object. THEN the object is most likely recreated in industry to be burned again with great loss in energy, resources, and increase in pollutants. Hardly a "sustainable" resource when looked at with a greater perspective.

What is the symptom? What is the cause?

Sir: The burning of residential waste STILL generates carbon dioxide ! Shame, shame, shame.