Déjà vu: No Time for the Timid

This anecdote was shared by one of our members after his time at the West Coast Waste Conversion Congress:

A little over nine years ago, I was attending a conference sponsored by a genset company to gather information for a cow manure project I was considering. The presenter gave a great talk on his manure-to-digester gas project and I raced up to speak with him afterwards.

Eagerly shoving my card in his face, I told him that I had a similar project in the works and asked him if he would consider partnering with me.

“No,” was his flat response.

Stunned, all I could utter was “Why not?!”

“I’ve done one of these in my lifetime,” the presenter responded. “I have no reason to do two.”

He went on to describe all the financial and technical hurdles he had to overcome to see his project to fruition. Hearing him recount the many roadblocks he hit discouraged me and I later dropped the project, advising my clients that anaerobic digestion for animal waste-to-energy just wasn’t viable.

Needless to say, I missed that train. Anaerobic digestion is now a well-accepted practice and many people have made tidy profits off of projects relating to it.

I reflected on this as the West Coast Energy Conversion Congress came to a close. The conference perfectly illustrated the fact that we are still in the early days of gasification technology, giving me a strong sense of déjà vu to my time studying anaerobic digestion. Similar to then, the older technology (in this case, mass burn incinerators) has fallen out of favor and, although newer technologies with lower price points and cleaner emissions are on the horizon, they haven’t arrived yet.

But the real take-away lesson from the conference is that there are enough green technology advancements in the works, as well as plenty of brave developers trying to bring the projects to fruition. The sheer number of developers suggests that while many will fail, several will make it through to commercial and environmental viability. And I won’t scare so easy this time!

The above story is a perfect example of why Better BTU came into being. Our industry is growing and changing so fast and we feel that there isn’t a central place for communication on ideas, technologies and projects that work, don’t work, etc. That’s what we’ve come to be about: sharing information and working towards a greener future!  

Industry Influence Spotlight: Harvey Gershman

Photo Credit: GBB, Inc. 

Harvey W. Gershman has been a staple in the waste industry for almost 40 years. The president of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, an international management consulting firm based in Fairfax, Va., has seen firsthand the change in the way our nation views and deals with waste as well as on continuing efforts to convert one man’s trash into another man’s treasure. And he has tracked it all in order to advise his clients on the best way to handle their waste management needs.

Gershman has the ear of some of the most important policymakers in Washington, advising organizations such as the National Center for Resource Recovery, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). He has served on several boards and was awarded SWANA’s Professional Achievement Award in 1993.

The Northeastern University graduate most recently presented at the Waste Conversion Congress – West Coast in San Jose, Calif. on Dec. 6-7. His presentation, entitled “Different Technologies under the Commercial Microscope.” served as a sort of State of the Union for the waste conversion industry. Gershman tracks developments in the field with regards to trends on America’s MSW disposal, the number and type of waste-to-energy plants operating and emerging waste-to-energy companies and technologies. By presenting this material in a concise and readable format, Gershman helps us understand where we are and where we need to go.

Although the majority of GBB Inc.’s clients are municipalities that have tended towards more conservative solutions, Gershman stays on top of advancements in the waste conversion field in order to present all possibilities to clients. His philosophy is that the best solution is a 50-50 partnership between waste management systems with significant recycling and waste-to-energy projects. 

For more on Harvey Gershman and his consulting firm visit www. gbbinc.com.

Download his latest presentation "Different Technologies under the Commercial Microscope." Special thanks to Mr. Gershman for his permission to share this PowerPoint presentation. 

Definition Please - Part II

In our last blog entry we discussed the need for standardized terminology in our emerging field. We talked about how the term ‘gasification’ has been connected to images of cleaner and greener forms of technology. Because of the broad definition of the word, vendors using older technologies have sometimes slapped the term on its technology in an attempt to connect to the positive images of gasification without really cleaning up the process and reducing the emissions its putting into the atmosphere.

Today we’d like to expand on that topic by focusing on the other side. Just as some use the term ‘gasification’ to try to connect to its positive attributes, others (some radical environmental groups) try to link gasification projects to incinerators by reducing them both to the most basic definition and thereby, painting them all with the same smoky-colored brush.

Although both incineration and gasification can be lumped into the category of waste management, the process objectives differ. Although exceptions can be found on both sides, incineration is generally a process focused on destroying solid waste and reducing the amount of trash filling up landfills. Additional air is added to the burning process and extra steps are required post-combustion to reduce the emissions being released into the air. Gasification, on the other hand, converts solid fuel (i.e. trash, etc.) into another form of energy, frequently termed as for “a higher and better use.”

Incinerators have come a long way since Manlove, Alliott & Co. Ltd. built the first (known as a destructor) in 1874 in Nottingham, England. Nowadays environmental regulatory agencies have limits on the emissions a plant can release and most incinerators have instruments that clear the flue gas of gaseous and particulate pollutants.

While most incinerators have cleaned up their act, the image remains tarnished. The average consumer conjures up thoughts of billowing smokestacks upon hearing the word and some have capitalized on those fearsome images to try to stop the implementation of gasifiers as well.

One such example of an organization incorrectly lumping all biomass plants together comes in the form of a case study by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice entitled Incinerators in Disguise. The second paragraph of the paper states:

Today, many dozens of companies are promoting technologies such as pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc, and catalytic cracking as a way to allegedly eliminate and “recycle” all types of waste into energy. Many of these companies falsely and boldly claim their technology is “pollution-free” and has “no emissions.” Aware of the public’s opposition to incineration, the companies promoting these technologies all claim these are not incinerators but are a “green” alternative to incinerators.

While there may be a rogue company working with plasma arc technology out there that has claimed to be “pollution free”, we at Better BTU find the vast majority of companies instead claim to “reduce emissions” and many will even give a percentage number on the website. The language of this paper seeks to lump all waste-to-energy processes together and label them “hidden incinerators.”

The paper goes on to say:

Despite grandiose claims of industry, the facts prove that these technologies are in reality “incinerators in disguise” that heats the waste materials, and then burn the waste gases and emit dioxin and other pollutants into the air.

What this paper fails to explain is just because a process heats up the waste materials does not make it incineration. Similarly, all waste treatment processes emit a percentage of pollutants into the air – the issue is how much and the reason gasification technology is on the rise is because it produces less pollution than incineration.

The reason the “so-called conversion technologies,” as the paper refers to them, are categorized that way is because they do just that - convert trash into a gas that can be used for other things such as making electricity, chemicals, liquid fuel, etc.

Better BTU Take: At the end of the day, both sides are playing fast and loose with language and they are able to do so because of the broad definitions of terms like ‘gasification’ and ‘incineration’. How about we all spend more time looking at the science and less on the politics?