Trash Incineration More Polluting than Coal

To make the same amount of ener­gy as a coal pow­er plant, trash incin­er­a­tors in 2018 released 65% more car­bon diox­ide (CO2), as much car­bon monox­ide, three times as much nitro­gen oxides (NOx), five times as much mer­cury, near­ly six times as much lead and 27 times more hydrochlo­ric acid (HCl).

Trash incin­er­a­tors are the dirt­i­est way to make elec­tric­i­ty by most air pol­lu­tion mea­sures. Even with air pol­lu­tion con­trol equip­ment, trash incin­er­a­tors emit more pol­lu­tion than (less con­trolled) coal pow­er plants per unit of ener­gy pro­duced. Coal pow­er plants are wide­ly under­stood as the most air-pol­lut­ing ener­gy source, but few real­ize how much worse trash incin­er­a­tors are for air quality.

This is not a rad­i­cal con­clu­sion. The New York State Depart­ment of Envi­ron­men­tal Con­ser­va­tion proved, in a 2011 analy­sis, that the state’s 10 trash incin­er­a­tors are dirt­i­er than the 8 coal-burn­ing pow­er plants that were still oper­at­ing at the time (all of the coal pow­er plants have since closed, but the 10 incin­er­a­tors remain). Except for sul­fur diox­ide, trash incin­er­a­tors are dirt­i­er than coal on the six oth­er pol­lu­tants the state com­pared (nitro­gen oxides, car­bon monox­ide, hydrochlo­ric acid, mer­cury, lead, and cadmium).[1] See the chart at the bot­tom of this page for the sum­ma­rized New York data.

Dioxins/furans: Trash incin­er­a­tors are well known to be the largest source of the most tox­ic man-made chem­i­cals known to sci­ence – diox­ins. The lat­est nation­al inven­to­ry of diox­in emis­sions – by the U.S. Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency in 2006, look­ing at data from 1987, 1995, and 2000 – shows that trash incin­er­a­tion has gone from the largest source of diox­in emis­sions in 1987 and 1995 to the 4th largest source in 2000. How­ev­er, if one accounts for the lack of con­tin­u­ous mon­i­tor­ing and the con­se­quent mas­sive under­es­ti­ma­tion of diox­in emis­sions from incin­er­a­tion, trash incin­er­a­tion is still the largest source of diox­ins, despite the cleanup or clo­sure of some of the dirt­i­est incinerators.[2]

Between 2000 and 2005, new diox­in emis­sions lim­its were imple­ment­ed for trash incin­er­a­tors, requir­ing the worst diox­in pol­lut­ing incin­er­a­tors to clean up or shut down. EPA and the trash incin­er­a­tor indus­try tout that diox­in emis­sions from trash incin­er­a­tors have been reduced by over 99% between 1990 and 2005. Even with this large reduc­tion, and with­out even account­ing for the afore­men­tioned under­es­ti­ma­tion from lack of con­tin­u­ous mon­i­tor­ing, trash incin­er­a­tors release 28 times as much diox­in than coal pow­er plants do to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[2][3][4]

Mer­cury is anoth­er noto­ri­ous­ly tox­ic pol­lu­tant released from incin­er­a­tors. It is a potent neu­ro­tox­in that accu­mu­lates in the fat­ty tis­sue of fish once in the envi­ron­ment. Mer­cury emis­sions from trash incin­er­a­tion were a close sec­ond to coal pow­er plants in the ear­ly 1990s, which is rather incred­i­ble giv­en the much larg­er size of coal pow­er plants and the fact that there are about five times as many coal plants as incin­er­a­tors. Pol­lu­tion con­trols required on trash incin­er­a­tors reduced the indus­try’s mer­cury emis­sions 96% by 2005.[5] How­ev­er, even with this dra­mat­ic indus­try-wide reduc­tion, trash incin­er­a­tion still put out 5.3 times as much mer­cury as coal plants do to pro­duce the same amount of ener­gy, accord­ing to the lat­est avail­able nation­al data from 2018.[5] A state-wide analy­sis by the New York State Depart­ment of Envi­ron­men­tal Con­ser­va­tion found that, in 2009, the state’s 10 trash incin­er­a­tors released 14 times as much mer­cury per unit of ener­gy than the state’s 8 coal pow­er plants – high enough that the total amount of mer­cury com­ing from the incin­er­a­tors was high­er than the emis­sions from the coal plants, even with­out adjust­ing for size (coal plants are far larg­er facilities).[1]

Lead is anoth­er well-known tox­ic chem­i­cal that dimin­ish­es intel­li­gence and – by low­er­ing dopamine lev­els in the brain – may even be tied to increas­es in vio­lent behav­ior and cocaine addiction.[6][7][8] Trash incin­er­a­tion releas­es more than six times as much lead as coal to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[5]

Nitro­gen oxide (NOx) pol­lu­tion pri­mar­i­ly con­tributes to eye, nose, throat, and lung irri­ta­tion and res­pi­ra­to­ry prob­lems like short­ness of breath that can trig­ger asth­ma. Trash incin­er­a­tion releas­es 3.3 times as much NOx as coal does to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[9]

Car­bon monox­ide (CO) is also released from trash incin­er­a­tors at rates com­pa­ra­ble coal pow­er plants per 1 MWh of ener­gy produced.[5] Both NOx (direct­ly) and CO (indi­rect­ly) con­tribute to the for­ma­tion of ground-lev­el ozone pol­lu­tion, aggra­vat­ing asthma.[11][12]

Sul­fur diox­ide (SO2) – famous as a cause of acid rain – is also bad for lungs, with even short expo­sures to ambi­ent lev­els caus­ing “bron­chocon­stric­tion and increased asth­ma symptoms.”[13] SO2 is one of the rare pol­lu­tants where coal plants are worse. Coal plants release two times more SO2 as trash incinerationbsp;to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[5][9]

Hydrochlo­ric Acid (HCl) is linked to acute bron­chi­tis and lung cancer.[14] Trash incin­er­a­tion releas­es a whop­ping 27 times more HCl than coal plants to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[5]

Car­bon diox­ide (CO2) – the prime glob­al warm­ing pol­lu­tant – is released at a rate 1.65 times that of coal pow­er plants.[15][16][17]. By ana­lyz­ing 2018 data from EPA’s Green­house Gas Report­ing Pro­gram (GHGRP), we were able to com­pare data from con­tin­u­ous emis­sions mon­i­tor­ing sys­tems (CEMS) on both incin­er­a­tors and coal plants. Oth­er data sources (such as EPA’s eGRID data­base) esti­mate incin­er­a­tor emis­sions with emis­sions fac­tors. How­ev­er, accord­ing to EPA, “for het­ero­ge­neous fuels such as munic­i­pal sol­id waste, CEMS are gen­er­al­ly con­sid­ered the most accu­rate emis­sions esti­ma­tion method.”[18]

While com­par­ing incin­er­a­tors and coal plants, we ruled out facil­i­ties that burn more than 5% of anoth­er fuel (to ensure a fair com­par­i­son of fuel types) and facil­i­ties that weren’t gen­er­at­ing any ener­gy. We also exclud­ed facil­i­ties that aren’t pri­mar­i­ly mak­ing elec­tric­i­ty. This was done to ensure that we can make com­par­isons in terms of pol­lu­tion per amount of elec­tric­i­ty pro­duced with­out over­es­ti­mat­ing pol­lu­tion lev­els by fail­ing to account for sig­nif­i­cant amounts of ener­gy pro­duced in the form of steam heat instead of electricity.

CO2 emis­sions from incin­er­a­tors and coal plants have not changed much over time. In 2012, trash incin­er­a­tors also emit­ted 65% more CO2 than coal plants.[15][17]

CEMS tech­nol­o­gy tracks the total CO2 com­ing out of the smoke­stack and doesn’t dis­crim­i­nate between the bio­genic and anthro­pogenic frac­tions of car­bon diox­ide emissions.

The indus­try argues that the “bio­genic” por­tion of CO2 emis­sions (that from burn­ing paper and oth­er organ­ic mate­r­i­al) should not count because trees will regrow and take the CO2 back out of the air.[19] How­ev­er, stud­ies of the alleged “car­bon neu­tral­i­ty” of bio­mass incin­er­a­tion have shown that bio­mass is not tru­ly car­bon neu­tral, as it can take many decades for trees to reab­sorb the pulse of CO2 emit­ted by incin­er­a­tion – mean­while, the cli­mate is heat­ing up at a high­er rate.[20] This also pre­sumes that some­where, trees are being replant­ed in suf­fi­cient num­bers to even­tu­al­ly take up this extra car­bon pol­lu­tion (and that those trees aren’t being count­ed toward off­set­ting some oth­er cli­mate dam­age… and that the trees will not be cut back down as soon as it’s prof­itable to use them). Trash incin­er­a­tors are not caus­ing any addi­tion­al tree and plant growth, so in com­par­i­son to land­fills or to oth­er ener­gy pro­duc­ers, no cred­it deserves to be applied to zero out bio­genic car­bon emissions.

Comparision of pollutants with the strongest data

Using 2018 inter­im NEI data[5], we con­duct­ed a robust analy­sis of over 73 pol­lu­tants tracked by NEI that were emit­ted and tracked across many dif­fer­ent types of pow­er plants (bio­mass burn­ers, gas plants, oil plants, etc.). From there, we elim­i­nat­ed pol­lu­tants that had few­er than 25 facil­i­ties report­ing emis­sions (since an out­lier could sig­nif­i­cant­ly change data) and pol­lu­tants based on mod­eled data. Using reli­a­bil­i­ty scores (with a reli­a­bil­i­ty score of 1 rep­re­sent­ing a ver­i­fied mea­sure­ment and a score of 5 rep­re­sent­ing the low­est data qual­i­ty) from EPA’s peer-reviewed StEWI software[21], we fur­ther restrict­ed the pol­lu­tants to those with reli­a­bil­i­ty scores of 1, 2, 3 ensur­ing that we were only com­par­ing pol­lu­tants with ver­i­fied mea­sure­ments and calculations.

Pol­lu­tantCoal emis­sions (lbs/MWh)Coal Data PointsIncin­er­a­tor emis­sions (lbs/MWh)Incin­er­a­tor Data Pointsx times worse than coal
Lead4.0E-051862.5E-04426.2
Mer­cury7.8E-061884.0E-05415.2
Ben­zene3.2E-041591.1E-03303.3
Nitro­gen oxides1.5E+002204.9E+00513.3
Toluene7.1E-051482.0E-04302.8
Cad­mi­um1.0E-051892.4E-05402.4
Car­bon Monoxide7.0E-011897.1E-01421.0
PM2.5 Pri­ma­ry3.1E-011891.6E-01420.5
Nick­el6.3E-051882.5E-05320.4
Sul­fur dioxide2.1E+002207.6E-01510.4
  1. New York State Depart­ment of Envi­ron­men­tal Con­ser­va­tion, “Mat­ter of the Appli­ca­tion of Cov­an­ta Ener­gy Cor­po­ra­tion for Inclu­sion of Ener­gy from Waste Facil­i­ties as an Eli­gi­ble Tech­nol­o­gy in the Main Tier of the Renew­able Port­fo­lio Stan­dard Pro­gram. Case No. 03-E-0188,” Aug. 19, 2011. http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={DEEA097E-A9A6-4E53-898C-0BC2F4C60CC4}
  2. “An Inven­to­ry of Sources and Envi­ron­men­tal Releas­es of Diox­in-Like Com­pounds in the Unit­ed States for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000,” U.S. EPA, Novem­ber 2006, Table ES‑2. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=159286 The largest sources in 2000 are con­sid­ered to be back­yard burn bar­rels (498.5 grams), fol­lowed by med­ical waste incin­er­a­tion (378 g), sewage sludge applied to land and emis­sions from sludge incin­er­a­tion (89.7 g) and trash incin­er­a­tion (83.8 g). The back­yard burn bar­rel esti­mate is not sub­ject to dras­tic dif­fer­ences based on test meth­ods. 95% of med­ical waste incin­er­a­tors have closed between 2000 and 2009. Most of the sewage sludge diox­in emis­sions are from land appli­ca­tion rather than sludge incin­er­a­tion (since far more is dumped on farm fields than is burned). EPA admits in their inven­to­ry report (p 3–23): “Because all tests were con­duct­ed under nor­mal oper­at­ing con­di­tions, some uncer­tain­ty exists about the mag­ni­tude of emis­sions that may have occurred dur­ing oth­er con­di­tions (e.g., upset con­di­tions, start up, and shut down).” If the med­ical waste, sludge incin­er­a­tion and trash incin­er­a­tion num­bers are adjust­ed upwards by 30–50 times to account for the fact that a 6‑hour stack test each year under­es­ti­mates diox­in emis­sions by this amount, com­pared to using con­tin­u­ous mon­i­tor­ing (and if the afore­men­tioned dif­fer­ences in the med­ical waste and sludge incin­er­a­tion data are account­ed for), trash incin­er­a­tion would still be the largest diox­in pol­lu­tion source by far. A new­er study from the Nether­lands (data from 2015 to 2017) found that actu­al diox­in emis­sions are 460–1,290 times high­er than stack tests indi­cate. See Arken­bout, A, Olie K, Esbensen, KH. “Emis­sion regimes of POPs of a Dutch incin­er­a­tor: reg­u­lat­ed, mea­sured and hid­den issues” http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8b2c54_8842250015574805aeb13a18479226fc.pdf
  3. U.S. Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency, Emis­sions & Gen­er­a­tion Resource Inte­grat­ed Data­base, eGRID2002 and eGRID2007 (for 2000 and 2005 elec­tric gen­er­a­tion data). http://www.epa.gov/egrid/
  4. “Emis­sions from Large and Small MWC Units at MACT Com­pli­ance,” U.S. Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency mem­o­ran­dum, August 10, 2007. https://energyrecoverycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ERC-070810_Stevenson_MWC_memo.pdf
  5. Unit­ed States Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency (EPA). 2018. “Nation­al Emis­sions Inven­to­ry (NEI)” Inter­im 2018 data accessed from the Emis­sions Inven­to­ry Sys­tem (EIS)

Posted

in

by

Tags:


EJ Communities Map

Map of Coal and Gas Facilities

We are mapping all of the existing, proposed, closed and defeated dirty energy and waste facilities in the US. We are building a network of community groups to fight the facilities and the corporations behind them.

Our Network

Watch Us on YouTube