Having pointed out the success of the alternative weekly collections in Brent, I thought it might be worth looking at the longer term.
More Recycling
Recycling has gone from less than 30% to 43% now following the introduction of the blue top bins. This year, we aim to bring the recycling per centage to 50%. This will through smaller schemes, including improving trade waste enforcement, recycling more cardboard, working with landlords to improve waste treatment at rented properties and continuing mechanical recovery where possible.
Less to Landfill
However, increasing recycling becomes harder as the percentages rise. The main area of future progress is likely to be diverting waste from landfill. This is largely the province of the West London Waste Authority, which deals with "back end" waste treatment. In April, the WLWA agreed to a contract with SITA to dispose of waste via a new power plant in the West Country. This plant is due to come onstream in Summer 2016. Once it is operating, less than 5% of WLWA waste should go to landfill.
Climate Change Emissions
There are some green campaigners who regard this as a bad thing, although it is common in many countries. The main component of the landfill is food waste, so burning it counts as renewable electricity generation. The effect is actually better for climate change emissions than burying it, because allowing the food to rot in the ground generates huge amounts of methane.
1 comment:
Your comments raise several issues:
1. The proportion of waste that is food waste
2. The notion that food waste should be collected and sent for anaerobic digestion
3. The climate change impact of treating food waste (including the notion of landfill gas capture)
1. The proportion of waste that is food waste
According to
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/142004/Composition_of_local_authority_collected_waste.pdf roughly 18% of total Local Authority Collected Waste is food waste. So if one recycled 50% of total waste, but absolutely no food waste, then that would leave the 'residual' containing 36% food waste.
2. The notion that food waste should be collected and sent for anaerobic digestion
Food waste should be reduced, with the remainder separately collected for anaerobic digestion , not left in the residual stream for either landfill or incineration. Long-term incineration contracts lock the food waste into being incinerator feedstock and this makes it more expensive to separately collect it for AD or composting. AD is a form of Energy from Waste that producers cleaner renewable energy than incineration (as incineration is far from green), and AD also produces disgestate which retains some of the nutrient value of the food waste that would be lost through incineration.
The Government's 2011 Review of Waste Policy states that: “...some food waste is unavoidable...It remains a key issue to ensure that this waste, along with any avoidable food waste that we are not managing to prevent, is kept out of landfill and treated in the most sustainable way, minimising GHG emissions and other environmental impacts. Our evidence base shows that of the main options for the treatment of food waste, anaerobic digestion offers the greatest environmental benefit, followed by composting. To be treated by anaerobic digestion, it is best if food waste is collected separately at source…” (Paragraph 195 and 196) http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13540-waste-policy-review110614.pdf
According to the Audit Commission: "Around 70 per cent of household waste is readily recyclable"
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/nationalstudies/localgov/Pages/welldisposed.aspx
As Resource Futures Non-executive Chair Phillip Ward put it: "black bag waste is not a single material. Resource Futures are the holders of comprehensive information about its composition and their study – published by Defra – shows that it is largely made up of regular recyclable materials and much of it is non-combustible."
http://www.isonomia.co.uk/?p=1209
3. The climate change impact of treating food waste (including the notion of landfill gas capture)
As stated above, the best method for treating food waste (following waste prevention) is separate collection for anaerobic digestion, with the second best being composting. Whilst some may say that incineration of food waste is better than landfill, it is not. In addition to the lock-in issue, incineration releases the embedded carbon of the food waste (which is sometimes overlooked because some people erroneously ignore the biogenic carbon when comparing the relative impact of different treatment options).
Indeed, from an emissions point of view biostabilising the waste via MBT prior to landfill is actually better than incineration.
As Defra put it in http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13548-economic-principles-wr110613.pdf "MBT (mechanical biological treatment)-landfill provides the best emissions performance in terms of the reatment/disposal of residual waste".
If waste is not biostabilised, then its emissions depend on the degree to which the landfill gas is captured - when gas is captured it can subsequently burned, which also produces renewable electricity.
For an interesting insight into incineration overcapacity, the recyclability of the current residual waste stream, and the impact of Europe on the future of waste management in the UK see: http://www.isonomia.co.uk/?p=1998
Post a Comment