Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Waste Management To Build 55-MW Waste-to-Energy Plant in Maryland

February 4, 2009   |   11 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"We believe Wheelabrator will help the counties move toward a more fully integrated waste disposal system that also includes the roll-out of a single-stream recycling program with an ambitious recycling goal of 60 percent."

-- Robin Davidov, Executive Director, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
11 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 11
February 6, 2009
Bravo, Maryland!

This is the kind of thing we need in a stimulus bill - how about two or three or more in every state!?

Imagine - stimulus that would actually provide a return on the investment!
Comment
2 of 11
February 6, 2009
America indeed should have been building 2-3 in every state but the environmental extremists and NIMBY's continue to oppose Energy-From-Waste by invoking nihilistic and frightful terms like "INCINERATOR" to scare the general public. Also, as the highest density waste flows always occur in urban areas, the confluence of Environmental Justice legal theory and practical realities of air emissions involved with even the cleanest combustion/post-combustion environmental controls leaves the local politician, when faced with voter/taxpayer anxiety, with little choice but to oppose. Time will tell if this proves out in Frederick MD.
Comment
3 of 11
February 7, 2009
To All: Bad idea. Their design includes a combustion unit that emits thousands of tons of carbon dioxide. We do need any more carbon dioxide green-house gas generating systems. To put a carbon dioxide capture unit on their combustion system would cost them tens of millions or more dollars.
Comment
4 of 11
February 7, 2009
I agree with Warren Reynolds. Incineration just exacerbates the CO2 problem. Davidov has been educated to the technology that produces high cetane, NO sulfur diesel with NO emissions from the manufacturing process using MSW as the feedstock. The cost of the carbon neutral Fischer Tropsche process is millions less. The plant also is capable of reconfiguration, to produce DME-likely a fuel of the future, at a very small cost. It's a pity big money companies are able to seduce this type of business. Incineration and landfill are the "bury and burn" anachronisms left to the 20th century. We have a transportation fuel crisis in this country. What better way to help ameliorate that problem than to use a renewable in a responsible fashion.
Comment
5 of 11
February 9, 2009
Guys guys, we have the technology to move the garbage now with efficient vehicles that use low emissions diesel or electrical.

We can't be buried in our own filth and gargage; that's a simple fact. Build the facilities using scrubber sequestering technologies; pay the price, and stay clean in "little pink houses" for you and me,...ahhh ain't that America.

All the Best,..
Comment
6 of 11
February 9, 2009
The analogy of "little pink houses" by F. Berry is sobering. Ever see a human face after the person has been exposed to high levels of CO2? Very pink. The sequestration of CO2 is highly controversial. Just moving it somewhere else to let posterity take care of it. Incineration as espoused by Wheelabrator is incineration. Something like the pig in lipstick. Still a pig. Isn't it time to think outside the box? There exists technology on a commercial level that is carbon neutral and will produce a sulfur free diesel with MSW as the origin.
Comment
7 of 11
February 11, 2009
So, to those opposed, you'd rather build yet another non-sustainable coal-fired power plant than combust something we're just going to throw away and bury anyway? Yes, this technology emits CO2, NOx, etc., but it's far less than coal. What this article fails to mention is this statement from a similar story in MSW Management:
"By replacing fossil fuels in the generation of electricity, waste-to-energy facilities actively reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases. The Frederick waste-to-energy facility is expected to offset the release of approximately 500,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that waste-to-energy plants produce electricity with 'less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity.'"
Calling the process "incineration" is misleading because it neglects the fact that energy is being recovered from the combustion process rather than being wasted.
Comment
8 of 11
February 13, 2009
Calling it anything other than an "incinerator" is misleading as it is combustion technology. Incinerators do recover energy, but only a small portion and especially when taking into account the energy and resources put into the products that later become "waste" and are burned. Let's try to broaden our scope to include the whole process. 55MW is hardly that much energy - and more than CO2 will be emitted from the stack including, but not limited to Dioxin (one of the most deadly toxics known) and Furans.

Seems like some people here would benefit from watching the short video called The Story of Stuff
http://www.storyofstuff.com/

As for the EPA comment - I would love to see where and when that is from as there is ample scientific evidence that would expose the twisted logic of that environmental impact statement.
Comment
9 of 11
June 26, 2009
I understand all the issues related to CO2 but I would like to seel less emotion and more facts. Wheelabator has a facility in Baltimore, MD. What are the CO2 levels around this plant. What about other plants, such as the much maligned plant in Dickerson, MD? What about SO2?
Cut the NIMBY and PC posturing and present some facts about existing facilities?
Comment
10 of 11
April 13, 2010
The nice thing about free speech is that you don't have to know anything about the subject in order to have an opinion. And so it is with all those how bray about the need for there to be zero emissions as a result of their energy consumption, just so long as the lights always come on when the switch is flicked and the cost is less than a latte per day.

The reality of the matter is that, no matter what we do, the earth will never be the same as it was before. The earth has been warmer, and it has been cooler, than it is now. And it will be thus again, as it has been since the beginning.

Transforming waste matter into energy is the most ethical thing humans can do with our scare resources. Let us continue to find more clean and efficient ways to effect that transformation. It is high time we put the pagan ethos of everything manmade necessarily being evil behind us. Let's get on with building a better world.
Comment
11 of 11
November 25, 2011
Why not feed the CO2 to a biomass to generate biodiesel?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Schletter Inc. EnPower Systems Inc. Fairtrade-Messe Sol Systems LLC Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Solectria Renewables LLC RES Offshore
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters