arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes arguments against...

129
Arguments against Arguments against incineration and other incineration and other thermal destruction processes thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett Dr Paul Connett Professore Emerito di Chimica Professore Emerito di Chimica St Lawrence University, Canton, NY St Lawrence University, Canton, NY pconnett pconnett @ @ gmail gmail .com .com www. www. AmericanHealthStudies AmericanHealthStudies .org .org www. www. FluorideALERT FluorideALERT .org .org Napoli, Feb 19, 2009 Napoli, Feb 19, 2009

Upload: cross-boni

Post on 02-May-2015

231 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Arguments against Arguments against incineration and other thermal incineration and other thermal

destruction processesdestruction processes

Dr Paul ConnettDr Paul ConnettProfessore Emerito di ChimicaProfessore Emerito di Chimica

St Lawrence University, Canton, NYSt Lawrence University, Canton, NY

pconnettpconnett@@gmailgmail.com.com

www.www.AmericanHealthStudiesAmericanHealthStudies.org.org

www.www.FluorideALERTFluorideALERT.org.org

Napoli, Feb 19, 2009Napoli, Feb 19, 2009

Page 2: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

•Grazie a Rossano Ercolini Grazie a Rossano Ercolini (Ambiente e Futuro)(Ambiente e Futuro) per avere organizzato per avere organizzato la mia # 39 visita in Italia la mia # 39 visita in Italia

Rossano Ercolini Rossano Ercolini

AmbienteAmbientefuturofuturo@[email protected]

Page 3: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

la crisi globale:la crisi globale:

Dalla Rivoluzione Dalla Rivoluzione Industriale noi Industriale noi abbiamo abbiamo imposto una imposto una civiltà civiltà linearelineare su un pianeta che su un pianeta che funziona in modo funziona in modo circolarecircolare

Page 4: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

una civiltà lineareuna civiltà lineare

Page 5: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione Estrazione

una civilta lineareuna civilta lineare

Page 6: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione Estrazione ProduzioneProduzione

una civilta lineareuna civilta lineare

Page 7: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione Estrazione ProduzioneProduzioneConsumoConsumo

una civilta lineareuna civilta lineare

Page 8: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione Estrazione ProduzioneProduzioneConsumoConsumo rifiutirifiuti

una civilta lineareuna civilta lineare

Page 9: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione Estrazione ProduzioneProduzioneConsumoConsumo rifiutirifiuti

pubblicità/TVpubblicità/TV

Page 10: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Troppa pubblicita’Troppa pubblicita’produceproduceTroppo consumoTroppo consumo

Page 11: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

All’età di 16 anni i ragazzi di oggi hanno già guardato

oltre 350.000 spot pubblicitari.

Paul Hawken The Ecology of Commerce

Page 12: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Illusione invece di Illusione invece di realta’realta’ L’illusione: L’illusione:

piu’ consumi piu’ sei felicepiu’ consumi piu’ sei felice La realta’:La realta’:

piu’ consumi piu’ diventi piu’ consumi piu’ diventi grasso! grasso!

… … e piu’ rifiuti producie piu’ rifiuti produci

Page 13: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

UomoUomo

Page 14: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Uomo moderno!Uomo moderno!

Page 15: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett
Page 16: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

ENERGIAENERGIA

una civiltà lineareuna civiltà lineare

Page 17: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA

una civiltà lineareuna civiltà lineare

Page 18: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA

una civiltà lineareuna civiltà lineare

Page 19: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA

una civiltà lineareuna civiltà lineare

ENERGIAENERGIA

Page 20: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA

una civiltà lineareuna civiltà lineare

ENERGIAENERGIA

Page 21: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA

una civiltà lineareuna civiltà lineare

ENERGIAENERGIA

Page 22: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

il riscaldamento il riscaldamento globale del pianetaglobale del pianeta

Page 23: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

EstrazioneEstrazione didi

materiematerieprimeprime

Produzione Produzione didi

oggettioggettiConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY

GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

Page 24: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

EstrazioneEstrazione didi

materiematerieprimeprime

Produzione Produzione didi

oggettioggettiConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY

GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

How do waste handling practicesHow do waste handling practices change this situation?change this situation?

Page 25: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA ENERGIAENERGIA

DISCARICHEDISCARICHE

GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING

Page 26: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA ENERGIAENERGIA

INCENERIMENTOINCENERIMENTO

GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING

Page 27: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA ENERGIAENERGIA

RICICLAGGIO DI MATERIALIRICICLAGGIO DI MATERIALI

GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING

Page 28: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA ENERGIAENERGIA

RIUSO DI OGGETTIRIUSO DI OGGETTI

GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING

Page 29: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Estrazione diEstrazione dimateriematerieprimeprime

Produzione diProduzione dioggettioggetti ConsumoConsumo RifiutiRifiuti

Rifiuti SolidiRifiuti Solidi

Inquinamento dell’ariaInquinamento dell’aria

Inquinamento dell’acquaInquinamento dell’acqua

Anidride carbonicaAnidride carbonica

ENERGIAENERGIA ENERGIAENERGIA

COMPOSTAGGIOCOMPOSTAGGIO

GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING

Page 30: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

COMPOSTAGGIOCOMPOSTAGGIO

Page 31: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’ incinerimentoL’ incinerimento non non èè una Soluzione una Soluzione

SostenibileSostenibile

Page 32: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’ incinerimento L’ incinerimento E’ uno spreco di denaro pubblico E’ uno spreco di denaro pubblico E’ uno spreco di preziose risorse materialiE’ uno spreco di preziose risorse materiali E’ uno spreco di energiaE’ uno spreco di energia E’ una perdita di un’opportunita’ di E’ una perdita di un’opportunita’ di

combattere il riscaldamento globale del combattere il riscaldamento globale del pianetapianeta

Gli inceneritori producono ceneri tossicheGli inceneritori producono ceneri tossiche Gli inceneritori producono emissioni Gli inceneritori producono emissioni

tossiche nell’atmosferatossiche nell’atmosfera Esistono alternativeEsistono alternative

Page 33: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’ incinerimento L’ incinerimento e’ e’ uno spreco di denaro uno spreco di denaro

pubblicopubblico

Page 34: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Il “termovalorizzatore” di Il “termovalorizzatore” di BresciaBrescia

Page 35: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’inceneritore di L’inceneritore di Brescia e’ costato Brescia e’ costato 300,000,000300,000,000 Euro e ha Euro e ha creato soltanto creato soltanto 8080 posti di lavoro!posti di lavoro!

Page 36: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Nuova Scozia (Canada)Nuova Scozia (Canada)

50% dei rifiuti sottratto alle 50% dei rifiuti sottratto alle discariche in 5 anni discariche in 5 anni (Halifax ~ 60%)(Halifax ~ 60%)

1000 posti di lavoro1000 posti di lavoro creati dall’aprile creati dall’aprile 1996 1996

Altri 2000 posti di lavoroAltri 2000 posti di lavoro creati in creati in industrie che usano i materiali industrie che usano i materiali separatiseparati

Page 37: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’ incinerimento L’ incinerimento e’ e’ uno spreco di energiauno spreco di energia

Page 38: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Recupero di Energia: Recupero di Energia: RiciclaggioRiciclaggio contro contro incenerimentoincenerimento (ICF consulting, 2005)(ICF consulting, 2005)

10.9 X4.7652.09altre plastiche

26.4 X3.2285.16PET

10.2 X6.3064.27HDPE

4.2 X2.259.49Carta mista

Energia in più recuperata con il riciclaggioconfrontatacon l’incenerimento

Energia prodotta con l’incenerimentoproducendo energia elettrica

Energia salvatacon il riciclaggo

materiali

GigaJoules/tonne

Page 39: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’ incinerimento L’ incinerimento e’ e’ una perdita di una perdita di

un’opportunita’ di un’opportunita’ di combattere il combattere il

riscaldamento globale riscaldamento globale del pianetadel pianeta

Page 40: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Kg di gas-serra/tonnellata Rifiuti Kg di gas-serra/tonnellata Rifiuti UrbaniUrbani

-10Incenerimento producendo energia elettrica

46 X

-461Riciclaggio e compostaggio

Waste Management Options and Climate Change, AEA 2001

Slide from Attilio TornavaccaSlide from Attilio Tornavacca

Page 41: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Gli inceneritori Gli inceneritori producono ceneri producono ceneri tossichetossiche

Page 42: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Per ogni Per ogni 3-4 T3-4 T di di rifiutirifiuti si ottiene si ottiene

circacirca 1 T1 T di di cenericeneri

Page 43: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

CADUTA

CAMERA SECONDARIA

TURBINA

BOLLITORE

ELETTRICITA’

VAPORE

RIFIUTI

TEMP< 200oC

SEMI-DRYSCRUBBER

FABRIC FILTER

WET SCRUBBER

DE-NOX

ACTIVATEDCHARCOAL

Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION

AMMONIAINJECTION

GRIGLIE

Page 44: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

CADUTA

CAMERA SECONDARIA

TURBINA

BOLLITORE

ELETTRICITA’

VAPORE

RIFIUTI

CENERI DEPOSITATE

TEMP< 200oC

SEMI-DRYSCRUBBER

FABRIC FILTER

WET SCRUBBER

DE-NOX

ACTIVATEDCHARCOAL

Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION

AMMONIAINJECTION

GRIGLIE

90%90%

Page 45: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

CADUTA

CAMERA SECONDARIA

TURBINA

BOLLITORE

ELETTRICITA’

VAPORE

RIFIUTI

CENERI DEPOSITATE CENERI VOLATILI

TEMP< 200oC

SEMI-DRYSCRUBBER

FABRIC FILTER

WET SCRUBBER

DE-NOX

ACTIVATEDCHARCOAL

Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION

AMMONIAINJECTION

GRIGLIE

90%90% 10%10%

Page 46: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

La Gestione delle La Gestione delle Ceneri TossicheCeneri Tossiche

La Germania e la Svizzera mettono le La Germania e la Svizzera mettono le ceneri volatili dentro sacchetti di nylon ceneri volatili dentro sacchetti di nylon messi in miniere di salemessi in miniere di sale

In Giappone alcuni inceneritori In Giappone alcuni inceneritori vetrificano le cenerivetrificano le ceneri

In Danimarca…In Danimarca… Le spediscono tutte in NorvegiaLe spediscono tutte in Norvegia Italia ????Italia ????

Page 47: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Gli inceneritori Gli inceneritori producono producono emissioni tossiche nell’atmosfera

Page 48: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Emissioni tossiche nell’atmosfera

CO2 + H2O

GAS ACIDI:HCI, HF, SO2

NOx

metalli tossicimetalli tossici :Pb, Cd, Hg, etc

diossine diossine e furanie furani

NANONANOPARTICELLEPARTICELLE

Page 49: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

La misuraLa misuradelle particelle delle particelle

regolateregolatenell’ emissionenell’ emissione

dell’dell’inceneritoreinceneritorenanoparticellenanoparticelle

2.52.5

Page 50: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

I pericoli delle I pericoli delle nanoparticellenanoparticelle

Le nanoparticelle non sono Le nanoparticelle non sono catturate in modo efficiente dai catturate in modo efficiente dai filtri di depurazione filtri di depurazione dell’inceneritoredell’inceneritore

Viaggiano a lunghe distanzeViaggiano a lunghe distanze Restano in sospensione per un Restano in sospensione per un

periodo di tempo prolungatoperiodo di tempo prolungato

Page 51: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SANGUESANGUE

Le Le nanoparticelle nanoparticelle sono così piccolesono così piccole

che possono che possono facilmente facilmente attraversareattraversare

le membranele membrane dei polmonidei polmoni

Page 52: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Nano PatologiaNano Patologia

Una volta che le Una volta che le nanoparticelle sono nanoparticelle sono nel sangue nel sangue

possono possono attraversare le attraversare le membrane membrane

di ogni tessutodi ogni tessuto

Page 53: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Nano PatologiaNano Patologia

le nanoparticelle le nanoparticelle

possono attraversare possono attraversare

la barriera sanguigna la barriera sanguigna

del cervellodel cervello

Page 54: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Aggregati di PiomboAggregati di Piombo, , BarioBario, , CromoCromo, , FerroFerro ee SilicioSilicio nelnel

CervelloCervello..

www.stefanomontanari.net

Page 55: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Diossina e Diossina e IncenerimentoIncenerimento

Page 56: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Diossine:Diossine: maggiori maggiori preoccupazioni per la salutepreoccupazioni per la salute

• Le diossine si accumulano nel grasso animale.Le diossine si accumulano nel grasso animale.• Un litro Un litro di latte di muccadi latte di mucca dà la stessa dose di dà la stessa dose di

diossina quanta ne assumeremmo respirando diossina quanta ne assumeremmo respirando aria vicino ad una mucca per aria vicino ad una mucca per OTTOOTTO MESIMESI (Connett (Connett and Webster, 1987). and Webster, 1987).

• Le diossine si Le diossine si accumulanoaccumulano nel grasso del corpo nel grasso del corpo umano.umano.

• L’uomo non può espellerle MA una donna puo…L’uomo non può espellerle MA una donna puo…• … … avendo un bambino!avendo un bambino!

Page 57: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Diossina: la maggiore Diossina: la maggiore dose va al fetodose va al feto

In nove mesi In nove mesi molta molta diossina diossina accumulata in accumulata in 20-30 anni nel 20-30 anni nel grasso della grasso della madre va al madre va al fetofeto

Page 58: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

La diossina interferisce con La diossina interferisce con il feto e con lo sviluppo il feto e con lo sviluppo infantileinfantile

o Le diossine distruggono almeno sei Le diossine distruggono almeno sei sistemi ormonali:sistemi ormonali:

o gli ormoni dell’identità sessuale gli ormoni dell’identità sessuale di di maschio e femminamaschio e femmina

o gli ormoni della tiroidegli ormoni della tiroideo insulina e altri.insulina e altri.

Page 59: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Our Stolen Future Our Stolen Future (Il Nostro Futuro Rubato)(Il Nostro Futuro Rubato)

Come le sostanze chimiche Come le sostanze chimiche prodotte dall’uomo minacciano prodotte dall’uomo minacciano la nostra fertilità, intelligenza e la nostra fertilità, intelligenza e sopravvivenzasopravvivenza

Theo Colborn, John Peterson Theo Colborn, John Peterson Myers and Dianne Myers and Dianne Dumanoski, 1994Dumanoski, 1994

Page 60: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Developmental Effects of Developmental Effects of DioxinsDioxins

Linda S. BirnbaumLinda S. Birnbaum

Health Effects Research Laboratory, US EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory, US EPA

Environmental Health PerspectivesEnvironmental Health Perspectives,,

103103: 89-94, 1995: 89-94, 1995

Page 61: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

The most worrying The most worrying environmental environmental pollutants are those pollutants are those which cause a subtle which cause a subtle shift in the whole shift in the whole populationpopulation

Page 62: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

IQ and populationIQ and population

100

Number of KidsWith a

Specific IQ

IQ

Page 63: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

IQ and populationIQ and population

95 100

Number of KidsWith a

Specific IQ

IQ

Page 64: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

IQ and populationIQ and population

Very BrightMentallyhandicapped

100

Number of KidsWith a

Specific IQ

IQ

Page 65: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

IQ and populationIQ and population

Very BrightMentallyhandicapped

95 100

Number of KidsWith a

Specific IQ

IQ

Page 66: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Institute of Medicine, Institute of Medicine, 20032003

Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds in the Food Supplyin the Food Supply

Strategies to Decrease ExposureStrategies to Decrease Exposure

July 1, 2003July 1, 2003

Page 67: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Institute of Medicine, Institute of Medicine, 20032003 ““Fetuses and breastfeeding infants Fetuses and breastfeeding infants

may be at particular risk from may be at particular risk from exposure to dioxin like compounds exposure to dioxin like compounds (DLCs) due to their potential to cause (DLCs) due to their potential to cause adverse adverse neurodevelopmentalneurodevelopmental, , neurobehavioralneurobehavioral, and , and immune immune systemsystem effects effects in developing in developing systems…”systems…”

Page 68: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Institute of Medicine, Institute of Medicine, 20032003 “…“…The committee recommends that The committee recommends that

the government place a the government place a high public high public health priorityhealth priority on reducing DLC on reducing DLC intakes by girls and young women intakes by girls and young women in in the years well before pregnancy is the years well before pregnancy is likely to occur.”likely to occur.”

““(by) (by) Substituting low-fat or skim Substituting low-fat or skim milk, for whole milk, milk, for whole milk, (and)…(and)… foods foods lower in animal fat…”lower in animal fat…”

Page 69: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

“Anche rendendo sicuro sicuro l’incenerimentol’incenerimento,,Esso non sarà mai una cosa sensatasensata.

Page 70: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

“Anche rendendo sicuro sicuro l’incenerimentol’incenerimento,,Esso non sarà mai una cosa sensatasensata.Semplicemente non ha senso spendere così tanti soldi

Page 71: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

“Anche rendendo sicuro sicuro l’incenerimentol’incenerimento,,Esso non sarà mai una cosa sensatasensata.Semplicemente non ha senso spendere così tanti soldiper distruggere risorse che dovremmoRISPARMIARE per il futuroRISPARMIARE per il futuro.”(PC)

Page 72: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’inceneritore moderno e’ un L’inceneritore moderno e’ un tentativo di perfezionare una tentativo di perfezionare una pessima idea.pessima idea.

Il nostro compito nel 21esimo Il nostro compito nel 21esimo secolo è non tanto quello di secolo è non tanto quello di trovare modi migliori per trovare modi migliori per distruggere i materiali di scartodistruggere i materiali di scarto

Quanto arrestare la produzione di Quanto arrestare la produzione di imballaggi e di prodotti che imballaggi e di prodotti che devono essere distrutti!devono essere distrutti!

Page 73: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

““The road to hell is The road to hell is pavedpaved

With good intentions”With good intentions”

Page 74: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

““The road to hell is The road to hell is pavedpaved

With good intentions”With good intentions”

Page 75: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

““The road to hell is The road to hell is pavedpaved

With good intentions”With good intentions”

ininvventions!”entions!”

Page 76: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Plasma arc plantsPlasma arc plants are part of family of technologies are part of family of technologies competing with mass burn incinerators (gasification, competing with mass burn incinerators (gasification, pyrolysis and plasma arc/torch) with very little pyrolysis and plasma arc/torch) with very little proven commercial track recordproven commercial track record

All claim NOT to be incinerators, but all involve two All claim NOT to be incinerators, but all involve two stages: stages:

1) the conversion of solid waste into a gas, 1) the conversion of solid waste into a gas, 2) the burning of the gas, producing many of the 2) the burning of the gas, producing many of the

same problems as a regular incinerator same problems as a regular incinerator So the more appropriate names would be:So the more appropriate names would be: Gasifying Gasifying incineratorincinerator PyrolyzingPyrolyzing incinerator incinerator Plasma arcPlasma arc incinerator incinerator

Page 77: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

PLASMA ARC TECHNOLOGY

Page 78: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Page 79: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

CHUTE

SECONDARYCHAMBER

TURBINE

BOILER

ELECTRICITY

STEAM

TRASH

BOTTOM ASH FLY ASH

TEMP< 200oC

SEMI-DRYSCRUBBER

FABRIC FILTER

WET SCRUBBER

DE-NOX

ACTIVATEDCHARCOAL

Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION

AMMONIAINJECTION

GRATES

For every 3-4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ashFor every 3-4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ash

Page 80: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Confronto tra Confronto tra incenerimento con incenerimento con torcia al plasma torcia al plasma e inceneritori e inceneritori di massadi massa Incenerimento di massaIncenerimento di massa Ha bisogno di poca energia Ha bisogno di poca energia

per bruciareper bruciare L’energia prodotta e’ usata L’energia prodotta e’ usata

per generare elettricita’per generare elettricita’ I fumi vengono puliti I fumi vengono puliti dopodopo

che sono stati bruciati che sono stati bruciati Produce ceneri pesantiProduce ceneri pesanti Produce ceneri leggereProduce ceneri leggere Rilascia pericolose Rilascia pericolose

nanoparticelle nell’aria nanoparticelle nell’aria

Torcia al plasmaTorcia al plasma Ha bisogno di un’ enorme Ha bisogno di un’ enorme

quantita’ di energia per quantita’ di energia per alimentare la torciaalimentare la torcia

Produce poca energia Produce poca energia I gas vengono pulitiI gas vengono puliti prima di prima di

essere bruciatiessere bruciati Produce fanghi vetrificatiProduce fanghi vetrificati Produce ceneri leggereProduce ceneri leggere Rilascia pericolose Rilascia pericolose

nanoparticelle nell’ariananoparticelle nell’aria

Page 81: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Paragone tra Paragone tra Torcia al plasmaTorcia al plasma con l’incenerimento di massa con l’incenerimento di massa

Incenerimento di massaIncenerimento di massa NON SOSTENIBILENON SOSTENIBILE Perche’ distrugge Perche’ distrugge

risorse di materiali risorse di materiali limitatelimitate

Torcia al plasmaTorcia al plasma NON SOSTENIBILENON SOSTENIBILE Perche’ distrugge risorse Perche’ distrugge risorse

di materiali limitatedi materiali limitate

Page 82: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Incenerimento conIncenerimento con Torcia al Torcia al plasmaplasma - -problemi praticiproblemi pratici Il problema con tutte le tecnologie di Il problema con tutte le tecnologie di

gassificazione aumentano se si passa da gassificazione aumentano se si passa da progetti pilota su piccola scala a progetti progetti pilota su piccola scala a progetti industriali su scala commerciale.industriali su scala commerciale.

Facendo funzionare la Torcia al plasma 24 ore Facendo funzionare la Torcia al plasma 24 ore al giorno con I rifiuti ad altissime temperature al giorno con I rifiuti ad altissime temperature logora la coibentazione della fornace che di logora la coibentazione della fornace che di conseguenza ha bisogno di continuo ripristino. conseguenza ha bisogno di continuo ripristino.

““La pulizia dei gas” suona piu’ semplice di La pulizia dei gas” suona piu’ semplice di quanto sia veramente. In un inceneritore quanto sia veramente. In un inceneritore convenzionale il costo del controllo del sistema convenzionale il costo del controllo del sistema di trattamento dei fumi costa piu’ della meta’ di trattamento dei fumi costa piu’ della meta’ del costo complessivo dell’impianto.del costo complessivo dell’impianto.

Page 83: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

CHUTE

SECONDARYCHAMBER

TURBINE

BOILER

ELECTRICITY

STEAM

TRASH

BOTTOM ASH FLY ASH

TEMP< 200oC

SEMI-DRYSCRUBBER

FABRIC FILTER

WET SCRUBBER

DE-NOX

ACTIVATEDCHARCOAL

Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION

AMMONIAINJECTION

GRATES

Ogni 3-4 ton di rifiuti ottieni circa 1 ton di ceneriOgni 3-4 ton di rifiuti ottieni circa 1 ton di ceneri

Page 84: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

IncenerimentoIncenerimento con Torcia al con Torcia al plasmaplasma - - chimici constraintschimici constraints

Non c’e’ magia che annulli la chimica di base.Non c’e’ magia che annulli la chimica di base. Quello che entra = quello che esceQuello che entra = quello che esce Abbiamo bisogno di attenti studi di bilanci di massa per Abbiamo bisogno di attenti studi di bilanci di massa per

vedere dove finiscono il vedere dove finiscono il mmercurio, l’arsenico, il mmercurio, l’arsenico, il cadmio, il piombo, il cloro, il fluoro, e il bromo cadmio, il piombo, il cloro, il fluoro, e il bromo :nei :nei fanghi, nei prodotti metallici, nelle ceneri leggere o fanghi, nei prodotti metallici, nelle ceneri leggere o nell’aria. nell’aria.

Il problema finale riguarda la tematica delle Il problema finale riguarda la tematica delle nanoparticlesnanoparticles. Al momento queste . Al momento queste non vengono ne’ non vengono ne’ regolamentate, ne monitorateregolamentate, ne monitorate ma hanno delle ma hanno delle conseguenze sulla salute molto gravi..conseguenze sulla salute molto gravi..

Page 85: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

PLASCOPLASCO

Has built a 100 ton per day pilot Has built a 100 ton per day pilot plant in Ottawa, Canadaplant in Ottawa, Canada

Is aggressively marketing Is aggressively marketing technology all over Canada, US technology all over Canada, US and some other countriesand some other countries

Page 86: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

PLASCOPLASCO

Page 87: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SolidSolid convertedconverted

to gasto gas

PLASCOPLASCO

At aboutAt about 600 -700 deg. C600 -700 deg. C

Page 88: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SolidSolid convertedconverted

to gasto gas

PLASCOPLASCO

At aboutAt about 600 -700 deg. C600 -700 deg. C

GasGas

Page 89: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SolidSolid convertedconverted

to gasto gas

PLASCOPLASCO

At aboutAt about 600 -700 deg. C600 -700 deg. C

GasGas

SolidSolid

Page 90: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SolidSolid convertedconverted

to gasto gas

PLASCOPLASCO

At aboutAt about 600 -700 deg. C600 -700 deg. C

GasGas

SolidSolid

Vitrified slagVitrified slag

Page 91: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SolidSolid convertedconverted

to gasto gas

PLASCOPLASCO

At aboutAt about 600 -700 deg. C600 -700 deg. C

GasGas

SolidSolid

Vitrified slagVitrified slag

External External energyenergy

Page 92: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SolidSolid convertedconverted

to gasto gas

Gas Gas CoolingCooling

&&CleaningCleaning

PLASCOPLASCO

At aboutAt about 600 -700 deg. C600 -700 deg. C

GasGas

InternalInternalCombustionCombustion

engineengine

Page 93: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SolidSolid convertedconverted

to gasto gas

Gas Gas CoolingCooling

&&CleaningCleaning

PLASCOPLASCO

At aboutAt about 600 -700 deg. C600 -700 deg. C

GasGas

FFLLAARREE

When combustion enginesWhen combustion enginesnot workingnot working

Page 94: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

SolidSolid convertedconverted

to gasto gas

Gas Gas CoolingCooling

&&CleaningCleaning

PLASCOPLASCO

At aboutAt about 600 -700 deg. C600 -700 deg. C

GasGas

InternalInternalCombustionCombustion

engineengine

??

Page 95: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

GAS Cooling & CleaningGAS Cooling & Cleaning

Page 96: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

HeatHeatRecoveryRecovery

unitunit

HeatHeat

Page 97: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

NaOH NaOH solutionsolution

NaClNaClNaFNaFNaBrNaBr

NaCN ?NaCN ?

HeatHeatRecoveryRecovery

unitunit

HeatHeat

WetWetScrubberScrubber

““Salt” + waterSalt” + water

Page 98: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

NaOH NaOH solutionsolution

NaClNaClNaFNaFNaBrNaBr

NaCN ?NaCN ?

HeatHeatRecoveryRecovery

unitunit

HeatHeat

WetWetScrubberScrubber

““Salt” + waterSalt” + water

ActivatedActivated CarbonCarbon

Carbon Carbon + mercury+ mercury+ dioxins+ dioxins

etcetc

Page 99: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

NaOH NaOH solutionsolution

NaClNaClNaFNaFNaBrNaBr

NaCN ?NaCN ?

HeatHeatRecoveryRecovery

unitunit

HeatHeat

WetWetScrubberScrubber

““Salt” + waterSalt” + water

ActivatedActivated CarbonCarbon

Carbon Carbon + mercury+ mercury+ dioxins+ dioxins

etcetc

CarbonCarbonFilterFilterPlusPlus

bacteriabacteria

SulfurSulfur

Page 100: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

NaOH NaOH solutionsolution

NaClNaClNaFNaFNaBrNaBr

NaCN ?NaCN ?

HeatHeatRecoveryRecovery

unitunit

HeatHeat

WetWetScrubberScrubber

““Salt” + waterSalt” + water

ActivatedActivated CarbonCarbon

Carbon Carbon + mercury+ mercury+ dioxins+ dioxins

etcetc

CarbonCarbonFilterFilterPlusPlus

bacteriabacteria

SulfurSulfur

Page 101: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

PLASCO CEO Rod PLASCO CEO Rod Bryden says:Bryden says: 1) Filter ash goes back into 1) Filter ash goes back into

furnace.furnace. 2) System produces no dioxin 2) System produces no dioxin

because no oxygen available.because no oxygen available. 3) System destroys nanoparticles.3) System destroys nanoparticles.

Page 102: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Recycling fly ashRecycling fly ash

Modern incinerators use carbon filters to Modern incinerators use carbon filters to remove mercuryremove mercury

This carbon is part of the fly ashThis carbon is part of the fly ash If you put the fly ash back into the If you put the fly ash back into the

furnace you will release ALL the mercury furnace you will release ALL the mercury againagain

There is only place left for the mercury to There is only place left for the mercury to go (and other volatile metals) and that is go (and other volatile metals) and that is into the AIR.into the AIR.

Page 103: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

No dioxin because no No dioxin because no airair

There is plenty of air in incoming There is plenty of air in incoming waste!waste!

Dioxin emitted in other plasma Dioxin emitted in other plasma arc facilitiesarc facilities

Page 104: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Yang & Kim (2004).Yang & Kim (2004). Characteristics of dioxins Characteristics of dioxins and metals emission from radwaste plasma and metals emission from radwaste plasma arc melter system.  arc melter system.  Chemosphere 57: 421-428Chemosphere 57: 421-428

When PVC was fed into the high-temperature When PVC was fed into the high-temperature melter, a significant quantity of PCDD/Fs, melter, a significant quantity of PCDD/Fs, cadmium and lead was emitted.cadmium and lead was emitted.

Wet scrubbing with rapid quenching, as well Wet scrubbing with rapid quenching, as well as a low temperature two-step fine filtration, as a low temperature two-step fine filtration, or both of them together or both of them together cannot cannot effectively effectively control the volatile metal species and gas-control the volatile metal species and gas-phase PCDD/Fs.phase PCDD/Fs.

The removal of PVC from the feed waste The removal of PVC from the feed waste stream must also be effective to reduce the stream must also be effective to reduce the emissions of the PCDD/Fs, cadmium and lead emissions of the PCDD/Fs, cadmium and lead species.species.

Page 105: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

The difference The difference between PR hype and between PR hype and RealityReality

The following slides are taken The following slides are taken from from www.GREENACTION.orgwww.GREENACTION.org

They document the dismal track They document the dismal track record of various gasification, record of various gasification, pyrolysis and plasma arc/torch pyrolysis and plasma arc/torch facilitiesfacilities

Page 106: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

INDUSTRIAL CLAIMS

Page 107: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and a

TIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Page 108: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

THERMOSELECT FACILITY IN KARLSRUHE

Page 109: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Page 110: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

BRIGHTSTAR’S WOOLONGONG FACILITY

Page 111: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Page 112: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Page 113: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

RICHLAND, WASHINGTON

Page 114: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Page 115: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Page 116: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

PEAT also claims that they PEAT also claims that they will have no fly ash will have no fly ash because they are going to because they are going to recycle it back into the recycle it back into the process.process.

Page 117: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Page 118: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

PEAT international PEAT international facility proposed for facility proposed for Anderson, Indiana, Anderson, Indiana, rejected by Mayor and rejected by Mayor and Council, Jan 2009Council, Jan 2009

Page 119: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

GASIFICATION, GASIFICATION, PYROLYSIS etcPYROLYSIS etc

Engineering consultants’ view:Engineering consultants’ view: ““Many of the perceived benefits of Many of the perceived benefits of

gasification and pyrolysis over combustion gasification and pyrolysis over combustion technology proved to be unfounded. These technology proved to be unfounded. These perceptions have arisen mainly from perceptions have arisen mainly from inconsistent comparisons in the absence of inconsistent comparisons in the absence of quality information.”quality information.”

Fichtner Consulting Engineers Ltd, Stockport, Fichtner Consulting Engineers Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, March, 2004Cheshire, March, 2004

Page 120: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Lurgi letterLurgi letter “…“…a decision has been taken within Lurgi to a decision has been taken within Lurgi to

discontinue marketing gasification and pyrolysis discontinue marketing gasification and pyrolysis technologies for waste conversion applications.technologies for waste conversion applications.

This decision has come after rigorous analysis of This decision has come after rigorous analysis of market requirements, technical feasibility and market requirements, technical feasibility and economic sensitivities of gasification and pyrolysis economic sensitivities of gasification and pyrolysis of waste, as applied by Lurgi and our competitors. of waste, as applied by Lurgi and our competitors.

We recognize there is a positive bias towards We recognize there is a positive bias towards gasification/pyrolysis amongst politicians and gasification/pyrolysis amongst politicians and environmentalists. However, we are in no doubt environmentalists. However, we are in no doubt that in the short to medium term neither that in the short to medium term neither technology will be developed and commercially technology will be developed and commercially proven to the point where it can compete.”proven to the point where it can compete.”

Letter (08-09-2003) to Fichter Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cheshire, Letter (08-09-2003) to Fichter Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cheshire, UKUK

Page 121: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

“Anche rendendo sicuro sicuro l’incenerimentol’incenerimento,,Esso non sarà mai una cosa sensatasensata.

Page 122: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

“Anche rendendo sicuro sicuro l’incenerimentol’incenerimento,,Esso non sarà mai una cosa sensatasensata.Semplicemente non ha senso spendere così tanti soldi

Page 123: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

“Anche rendendo sicuro sicuro l’incenerimentol’incenerimento,,Esso non sarà mai una cosa sensatasensata.Semplicemente non ha senso spendere così tanti soldiper distruggere risorse che dovremmoRISPARMIARE per il futuroRISPARMIARE per il futuro.”(PC)

Page 124: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

EPOCHE DIVERSE ESIGONO EPOCHE DIVERSE ESIGONO DOMANDE DIVERSEDOMANDE DIVERSE

20esimo SECOLO20esimo SECOLO

GESTIONE DEI GESTIONE DEI RIFIUTIRIFIUTI

“ “ Come ci liberiamo Come ci liberiamo dei nostri rifiuti in dei nostri rifiuti in

modo efficace e con modo efficace e con il minimo danno per il minimo danno per

la nostra salute e la nostra salute e l’ambiente?”l’ambiente?”

21esimo SECOLO21esimo SECOLO

GESTIONE DELLE GESTIONE DELLE RISORSERISORSE

“ “ Come trattiamo le Come trattiamo le risorse che si stanno risorse che si stanno

esaurendo in modo da esaurendo in modo da non privare le non privare le

generazioni future di generazioni future di una parte se non del una parte se non del loro intero valore?”loro intero valore?”

Page 125: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

EPOCHE DIVERSE ESIGONO EPOCHE DIVERSE ESIGONO DOMANDE DIVERSEDOMANDE DIVERSE

20esimo SECOLO20esimo SECOLO

GESTIONE DEI GESTIONE DEI RIFIUTIRIFIUTI

“ “ How do we get rid How do we get rid of our waste of our waste

efficiently with efficiently with minimum damage to minimum damage to our health and the our health and the

environment ?”environment ?”

21esimo SECOLO21esimo SECOLO

GESTIONE DELLE GESTIONE DELLE RISORSERISORSE

“ “ How do we handle our How do we handle our discarded resources in discarded resources in

ways which do not ways which do not deprive future deprive future

generations of some, if generations of some, if not all, of their value ?”not all, of their value ?”

Il puntoIl punto chiave era lachiave era la SICUREZZASICUREZZA

Il puntoIl punto chiavechiave è laè la

SOSTENIBILITÀSOSTENIBILITÀ

Page 126: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’ incinerimentoL’ incinerimento non non èè una Soluzione una Soluzione

SostenibileSostenibile

Page 127: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Paragone tra Paragone tra Torcia al plasmaTorcia al plasma con l’incenerimento di massa con l’incenerimento di massa

Incenerimento di massaIncenerimento di massa NON SOSTENIBILENON SOSTENIBILE Perche’ distrugge Perche’ distrugge

risorse di materiali risorse di materiali limitatelimitate

Torcia al plasmaTorcia al plasma NON SOSTENIBILENON SOSTENIBILE Perche’ distrugge risorse Perche’ distrugge risorse

di materiali limitatedi materiali limitate

Page 128: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

L’inceneritore moderno e’ un L’inceneritore moderno e’ un tentativo di perfezionare una tentativo di perfezionare una pessima idea.pessima idea.

Il nostro compito nel 21esimo Il nostro compito nel 21esimo secolo è non tanto quello di secolo è non tanto quello di trovare modi migliori per trovare modi migliori per distruggere i materiali di scartodistruggere i materiali di scarto

Quanto arrestare la produzione di Quanto arrestare la produzione di imballaggi e di prodotti che imballaggi e di prodotti che devono essere distrutti!devono essere distrutti!

Page 129: Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Arguments against incineration and other thermal destruction processes Dr Paul Connett

Dio Dio ricicla,ricicla,

il diavoloil diavolobruciabrucia