Disposal by whatever method or name still stinks of wasted resources
Download
1 / 42

Disposal By Whatever Method or Name Still Stinks Of Wasted Resources - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 113 Views
  • Uploaded on

Disposal By Whatever Method or Name Still Stinks Of Wasted Resources. Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource Management - Seattle [email protected] 206-599-6734 SWANA Winter 2005 Technical Symposia. Purpose of presentation.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Disposal By Whatever Method or Name Still Stinks Of Wasted Resources' - jenis


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Disposal by whatever method or name still stinks of wasted resources

Disposal By Whatever Method or NameStill Stinks Of Wasted Resources

Dr. Jeffrey Morris

Sound Resource Management - Seattle

[email protected]

206-599-6734

SWANA Winter 2005 Technical Symposia


Purpose of presentation
Purpose of presentation

  • Outline life cycle analysis results to show pollution prevention/resource conservation benefits of recycling (and waste reduction)

  • Explain indexing of pollutant impacts

  • Examine the costs of diversion

  • Examine the non-market economic value of pollution prevention/resource conservation

  • Discuss ending subsidies for wasting vs. subsidizing waste reduction & recycling

  • Outline methods for subsidizing recycling


Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo (SLO) County compared to landfill disposal with landfill gas (LFG) collection and energy generation




Net energy usage slo rlc vs tlc
Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC Product Manufacturing



Indexing of pollutants
Indexing of pollutants Product Manufacturing

  • Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) covers about 650 chemicals and chemical categories

  • There are 50,000 or 75,000 or more chemicals in use in the economy

  • Indexing releases of these chemicals according to their environmental impacts vastly simplifies the problem of interpreting pollutant release data

  • Example – global warming is one environmental impact category and is indexed by carbon or CO2: CO2 =1, CH4 = 23, N2O = 296; CF4 = 5,700, CFC-12 = 10,600.

  • Similar indexing for acid rain, nutrification, asthma and lung cancer, human toxicity; ecological toxicity, ozone depletion, smog, etc.


Net acidification slo rlc vs tlc
Net Acidification Product Manufacturing: SLO RLC vs. TLC



Net dalys slo rlc vs tlc
Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC Product Manufacturing



Net ecotoxicity slo rlc vs tlc
Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC Product Manufacturing


Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo (SLO) County compared to hypothetical waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration


Net energy usage slo rlc vs tlc1
Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC County compared to hypothetical


Net greenhouse gas slo rlc vs tlc1
Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC County compared to hypothetical


Net acidification slo rlc vs tlc1
Net Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC County compared to hypothetical


Net eutrophication slo rlc vs tlc1
Net Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC County compared to hypothetical


Net dalys slo rlc vs tlc1
Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC County compared to hypothetical


Net human toxicity slo rlc vs tlc1
Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC County compared to hypothetical


Net ecotoxicity slo rlc vs tlc1
Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC County compared to hypothetical


Environmental impacts of recycling in four regions of Washington State compared to landfill disposal with LFG flaring and to waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration


Disposal methods in wa regions
Disposal methods in WA regions Washington State compared to landfill disposal with LFG flaring and to waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration

  • Urban East – 90% waste-to-energy incineration

  • All Other Regions – 100% landfill

  • Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills.


Net energy use reductions from curbside recycling in washington state
Net Energy Use Reductions From Washington State compared to landfill disposal with LFG flaring and to waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerationCurbside Recycling In Washington State



Net acid gas reductions from curbside recycling in washington state
Net Acid Gas Reductions From Washington StateCurbside Recycling In Washington State


Net eutrophication reductions from curbside recycling in washington state
Net Eutrophication Reductions From Washington StateCurbside Recycling In Washington State




Curbside recycling costs vs avoided disposal costs in washington state
Curbside Recycling Costs Vs. Avoided Washington StateDisposal Costs In Washington State


Curbside recycling costs revenues in four regions of washington state
Curbside recycling costs & revenues Washington Statein four regions of Washington State

  • Curbside recycling costs = $173 to $265/ton

  • Recycling market revenues averaged $70 to $80/ton over past five years

  • Avoided disposal costs = $32 to $77/ton

  • Curbside costs = $25 to $70/ton, net of market revenues and net of avoided disposal costs, for programs collecting all recyclable materials.

  • Curbside costs = $65 to $140 for programs not collecting all materials.


Average value per ton for puget sound curbside recyclables
Average Value Per Ton For Washington StatePuget Sound Curbside Recyclables





Economic value of pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits of recycling
Economic value of pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits of recycling




So2 emissions allowances average monthly spot market prices
SO2 Emissions Allowances Luis ObispoAverage Monthly Spot Market Prices



Types of subsidies for wasting
Types of subsidies for wasting Luis Obispo

  • Direct - subsidies (local, national and international)

  • Direct - tax breaks

  • Direct - security, military and insurance services at low or no cost

  • Indirect - cheaper energy due to subsidies/tax breaks for energy production

  • Indirect – free disposal of pollutants to air, land and water


Potential solutions
Potential solutions Luis Obispo

  • End subsidies for wasting

  • Direct subsidies for recycling – e.g., Bundle recycling costs into garbage fees or provide direct payments for tons recycled

  • Bundle recycling costs into product prices – deposit/refund and other EPR systems

  • Internalize pollution costs in either garbage costs or virgin materials costs – e.g., greenhouse gas reduction credits for recycling or organics diversion programs


ad