O’Malley will sign waste-to-energy bill
by Matthew Cella
The Washington Times
8:28 p.m., Tuesday, May 17, 2011
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/omalley-will-sign-waste-energy-bill/
Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland announced on Tuesday that he will be signing a bill that will classify waste-to-energy as the same renewable energy as solar or wind. Maryland currently gets 5.5% of its energy from renewable sources, and they hope to reach their goal of 20% by 2022. While some supporters of this waste-to-energy bill say that it is more environmentally friendly than landfills, others argue that it releases pollution, removes the incentive for recycling, and competes with other cleaner modes of renewable energy. O'Malley points out that Maryland is not the first state to do this. In fact, over half the states that have a renewable energy goal classify municipal solid waste as a renewable energy source.In theory waste-to-energy, or incineration, is the ideal method of renewable energy. You take care of the trash problem, and the energy crisis at the same time. Unfortunately, incineration causes air pollution, which is very bad for the environment. However, how good or bad something is for the environment doesn't have anything to do with whether its renewable or not. Renewable means that its being made faster than its being used, and seeing that that is the case with trash and waste, it is technically renewable. Therefore by all means I believe that incineration should be classified as renewable. Saying that it's not is like saying nuclear power is. You have to put the right label on things. Keeping this in mind it should also be noted that renewable energy shouldn't be labeled as automatically clean.
Do you think that someday there might be a way to get rid of the air pollution from incineration?
Do you think incineration should be classified as renewable?
How would you feel if you lived near an incineration plant?
I have some mixed feelings about this. While it's great that waste is renewable, and aren't fossil fuels, I don't like how they can divert recyclables. Also, as we learned in class, the emit a ton of pollution, and that can be extremely dangerous. If we don't find a way to fut the amount of pollution that waste-to-energy emits, then as far as the environment is concerned we might as well be using fossil fuels. It defeats much of the purpose, really.
ReplyDeleteA possible sollution for the recyclables problem is that perhaps they could add an addendum to the law so that only that only wastes that couldn't otherwise have been recycled or composted can be used to produce waste-to-energy. There would be less waste-to-energy fuel produced if we did that, but then all of thf the waste would truly be waste and not otherwise useable resources.
Questions
1) I can't think of any, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't one. Until we find that solution, it is irresponsible to use waste-to-energy.
2) Yes, it does fit the definition. It seems like a bit of a cop out for states to use it to meet their renewable energy quotas.
3) I'm not sure I'd care too much. It's just like living near any sort of power plant or factory. I would prefer not to, but I wouldn't be terribly upset if one was built.
Reflection
ReplyDeleteI think Ryan has a point that renewability has nothing to do with the effects of a fuel source (although we generally equate renewable to good for the planet because most are), so the governor has a point in that respect. However, MSW is vastly different from other renewables like solar and wind, and so I don't think it's appropriate to have them competing with each other because incineration is very harmful and doesn't solve the problem that we're generating WAY too much waste than is environmentally healthful at the PRODUCTION stage.
Responses
1) The only way to prevent the pollution is to contain the pollutants. But that takes up space and costs more dough, so that's not a financially-appropriate solution.
2) It is renewable, but it's not a CLEAN renewable energy source.
3) I'd hate to be near an incinerator. It would probably stink, and it could produce a ton of smog, especially if an inversion occurred in the area.
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteLike Ryan, I know that if something is renewable, it simply means it is being made faster than it is being used. Because trash and waste are used in that way, they should definitely be classified as renewable. I’m not so sure about them being labeled as a renewable energy source that’s the same as wind or solar, though, and I don’t think Gov. Martin O’Malley should sign a bill saying they are.
I thought that it was great that Maryland gets 5.5% of its energy from renewable resources. While it doesn’t seem like a lot, it actually is, if you consider all of the wind turbines and solar panels that have to be around in order to just produce that much energy.
Reading that they hope to increase this number to 20% by 2022 made me think that they were being unreasonable, because quite frankly, that value is unrealistic. Or so it seems to me, anyway.
I don’t think that burning trash is better for the environment than landfills, but I do think it is a good way to get energy. All sources of energy have downfalls, and for burning trash and other wastes, that downfall is air pollution. When a disadvantage to using a source is as bad as that, though, people really need to consider how much waste they burn, because we don’t want to produce too much air pollution.
I was surprised that the person who wrote the article thought that burning wastes would ruin the incentive for recycling. Burning waste is a process that has been around for a while now, so I don’t see how that would suddenly change humans’ views on recycling. People are still going to recycle, no matter what new forms of alternative energy are out there, simply because they think they are playing their part in helping the earth and the environment.
While burning trash does compete with other forms of alternative energy, I don’t think that it’s a really big deal. Like I previously mentioned, all energy sources have downfalls, and just because burning causes air pollution doesn’t mean it should never be used.
Personally, I’m not a big fan of burning, but I’m okay if people do it, as long as it’s not done excessively.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that many states other than Maryland have already classified burning municipal solid waste as a renewable source of energy. I don’t know exactly why, but that struck me as being very odd.
This article relates to class because in the last unit, be learned all about forms of alternative energy, like wind, wave, and solar. Burning trash and other wastes seemed a lot like biomass to me, in which fuels are sometimes (but not always) burned for energy.
Answer the Questions
ReplyDelete1. No, I do not think there will ever be away to get rid of air pollution from incineration. Burning something always produces air pollution, and there is nothing humans can do to change that. Even if people were to contain the pollution in a dome of some sort, eventually the space would be filled, and we can’t just remove the dome and put a new one on. The pollution would wind up being released. Anyway people go about it, the air pollution would have to be released into the atmosphere. So no, I don’t think there will ever be a way to get rid of air pollution from incineration.
2. I don’t know if incineration should be classified as renewable. While I agree that trash and waste are renewable, and burning them produces a form of alternative energy, I just don’t think they should be called a renewable source. The reason I feel this way is because when I think of renewable energy sources, I think of clean energy. And incineration is no form of clean energy. I know that a source doesn’t have to be clean to be renewable, but that’s just the reason I feel this way.
3. I would hate to live near an incineration plant. Knowing that air pollution was constantly being released around me would make me paranoid. I would think that my internal organs would be harmed in some way. I’m not sure entirely why I’d feel that way, but I do know that something about living by an incineration plant that produces a ton of pollution would extremely annoy me.
Ask More Questions
1. Exactly how many states have classified burning municipal solid waste as a renewable source of energy?
2. Why is the issue of incineration such a big deal now, even though it was been around for a while?
3. When was incineration invented/created? Who discovered it?
4. Do you think Maryland’s goal to get 20% of its energy from renewable resources by 2022 is realistic? Why or why not?
5. How come individual states have to classify burning waste as a renewable source of energy, why doesn’t someone like the president decide that?
Add a graphic
http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/NewInterface/Photo_china.htm
This graphic shows a picture of an incineration plant emitting a lot of pollution into the atmosphere.