ENERGY CONSERVATION
THROUGH IMPROVED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
This report (SW-225) was written
by ROBERT A. LOWE
with appendices by MICHAEL LOUBE and FRANK A. SMITH
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
-------
ENERGY CONSERVATION
THROUGH IMPROVED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (SW-125)
Update Sheet
September 1976
SW125
The above report published by EPA in 1974, should now be updated on the pages indicated by the following
information.
Page 12, replace Table 2 with the following:
Table 2
ENERGY POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE FROM WASTE*
1973
1973
Btu's+ B/DOEI B/YOE#
(trillion) (thousand) (million)
Btu's B/DOE B/YOE
(trillion) (thousand) (million)
Theoretical
Available
Projected
Implementations
1,194
899
564
424
«. — •.
206
154
*" ~ ~
1,440
1,085
85
680
512
40
248
187
15
*These estimates of the amount of energy that could be recovered from residential and commercial
waste are a function of (l) population; (2) the average amount of residential and commercial solid waste
generated per person, and (3) the energy content of residential and commercial solid waste (4500 Btu
per pound. The higher heating value of 4500 Btu per pound (9 million Btu per ton) is generally accepted
as the energy value of "as received," unprocessed waste as delivered by a collection truck to a processing
or disposal facility.
*Btu: British Thermal Unit.
#B/DOE: Barrels per day of oil equivalent. (Assuming 5.8 million Btu's per barrel of oil and
365 days per year.) B/YOE: Barrels per year of oil equivalent.
Based on all Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's).
NOTE: Different waste processing methods have different recovery efficiencies. For example, a
shredding/air classification waste processing system loses some potential energy by removing heavy
combustibles from the fuel fraction, while high temperature incineration with no prior classification
would lose far less potential energy. However, no adjustment was made to allow for such processing
looses or energy conversion efficiencies (of, say, steam or electricity) because no prejudgment
can be made as to which energy recovery method would be used in any given situation.
-------
- 2 -
Page 14, paragraph 1: Delete and substitute the following:
At the present time, energy is being recovered from
post-consumer solid waste in the following locations in the
United States:
Ames, Iowa (RDF)
Blytheville, Arkansas (Small incineration)
East Bridgewater, Mass. (RDF)
Groveton, N.H. (Small incineration)
Harrisburg, Penn. (Waterwall combustion)
Nashville, Tenn. (Waterwall combustion)
Norfolk, Va. (U.S. Naval base; waterwall combustion)
Palos Verdes, Calif. (Methane recovery )
St. Louis, Mo. (EPA demonstration; RDF)
Saugus, Mass. (Waterwall combustion)
Siloam Springs, Arkansas (Small incineration)
South Charleston, W. Va. (Private test facility; pyrolysis)
Pages 15-19: Delete and substitute the following:
Due to the highly complex nature of implementing resource
recovery, the criteria used here to project possible imple-
mentations are not really valid. Many cities that seem to
have favorable local conditions -- economics, markets and
public interest -- have encountered stumbling blocks that
have delayed or postponed their projects. These obstacles
may be legal, financial, or technical; or they may relate to
the three criteria above.
Some cities do not have control over a sufficient amount
of waste within an economical haul distance to make a facility
viable. Other cities have procurement laws which limit their
options for acquiring a contractor or negotiating a contract.
Inability to bid design and construction activities as a single
contract or to accept other than the lowest bid may prevent a
city from obtaining the strongest possible guarantees or the
"best" design and equipment.
The market criterion used here, the presence of an electric
utility boiler with ash-handling capability, is not a valid determinant.
Almost every area has a viable market: the electrical grid network.
-------
- 3 -
The three economic criteria are also insufficient. More
important than population size is population density and control of
the waste stream. The community must be able to guarantee delivery
of the waste to the resource recovery facility and the population
must be sufficiently concentrated to collect and deliver large
quantities within an economical distance.
The criterion of alternative disposal costs is also not valid.
While the scarcity of land makes disposal more expensive, at the
present time resource recovery prices are generally competitive
with only distant landfills or those operating with the best environmental
controls. Because of the continued rising cost of land and stricter
environmental regulations regarding landfills, resource recovery
should, in the future, be competitive with landfills in many areas.
The advantage now of resource recovery over landfills is the conservation
of landfill space and the "cleaner" quality of the residue.
For a description of current resource recovery activities in
the United States, see: McEwen, L. A Nationwide Survey of Resource
Recovery Activities. Environmental Protection Publication SW-142.1.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. (In preparation.)
Page 21, paragraph 3: Add the following:
The Nashville waterwall combustion system was completed
in mid-1974. However, because of deficiencies in the design,
several costly modifications, most notably to the air pollution
control equipment, will be made to the facility. In order to
help cover operation costs and the capital costs of the necessary
modifications, steam prices have doubled and the City will
pay a dump fee.
Page 1-3, paragraph 2: Delete sentence one and substitute the
following:
EPA is partially funding two source separation demonstration
projects in Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts. Residents
separate their household refuse into glass and cans, newspapers,
and mixed refuse for weekly curbside collection. So far, this
effort at collecting bottles and cans has been very successful.
(See: Hansen, P. and J. Ramsey. Demonstrating Multimaterial
Source Separation In Somerville and Marblehead. Massachusetts.
Waste Age, 7(2): 26-27.48. February 1976. Reprinted, (Washington). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.
4 p.)
-------
- 4 -
Page II-3, paragraph 3 through page II-8: See Number 2, above.
Page 11-11: See Nationwide Survey of Resource Recovery Activities,
Cite completely
Pages 11-18 through 11-25: Delete.
This update sheet was prepared by the Resource Recovery Division,
Office of Solid Waste.
-------
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management series (SW-125)
Editing and technical content of this report was
the responsibility of the Resource Recovery Division
Single copies of this publication are available
from solid waste management publications distribution unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Energy Conservation through Source Reduction 9
Energy Recovery from Waste 11
Energy Conservation through Recycling 28
Energy Conservation through Improved Collection 33
Summary 36
References 38
Appendices 39
-------
-------
ENERGY CONSERVATION
THROUGH IMPROVED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Recent concern about energy supplies and environmental quality
has focused attention on how resources are used and on the effects
of resource use on the environment. Continued growth in the con-
sumption of materials and the generation of wastes -- with their
attendant use and waste of energy -- is neither inevitable nor
necessary. Energy could be conserved by improving upon current
materials use and waste management practices. This paper presents
four opportunities to conserve energy through better solid waste
management:
1. Source Reduction
2. Energy Recovery
3. Recycling
4. Improved Collec-
tion
reducing consumption of products
or reusing products, resulting
in the use of less energy and
materials and in the reduction
in waste generation
using solid waste as a fuel in
place of coal, oil or gas
using recycled materials that
consume less energy than virgin
materials in manufacturing pro-
cesses
using waste collection trucks
more efficiently, reducing fuel
consumption
-------
- 2 -
Considered separately, the "maximum possible" energy savings from
each of these four measures is:
B/DOE*
(thousand)
115
393
80
3
B/YOE**
(million)
42
143
30
1
Btu's***
(trillion)
244
832
172
6
Source Reduction
Energy Recovery
Recycling
Improved collection
*B/DOE, barrels per day of oil equivalent
**B/YOE, barrels per year of oil equivalent
***Btu's, British thermal units. One trillion = 1 x 1012
When considering the combination of these four energy conservation
measures, the reader should be aware that the total energy benefits
from improved solid waste management cannot be determined by adding the
potential savings listed above. This is because the four areas are
interrelated: energy saved in one area may reduce the potential for
savings in another. For example, banning nonrefill able beverage containers
(a source reduction measure) will reduce the amount of material available
for recycling. Recycling combustible materials like paper will reduce
the amount of waste available for energy recovery.
Some of the energy savings are additive. For example, energy
recovery can be accompanied by the recycling of inorganic (noncombustible)
materials. In fact, energy recovery improves the economics of materials
-------
3
recycling. This occurs because an energy recovery system can usually be
economically viable without materials recovery, although the opposite is
not true. In an energy recovery system, the noncombustible recyclable
materials are typically separated from the mixed waste (and therefore
available for recycling) even if they are not going to be recycled.
The additional cost of removing the recyclable materials appears to be
less than the additional revenues from the sale of those materials.
In general, the largest quantity of energy is conserved by combining
measures despite the reductions in certain categories. The potential
energy savings from combining all measures in one possible scenario are:
Source Reduction
Energy Recovery
Recycling
Improved Collection
B/DOE*
(thousand)
115
357
46
3
B/YOE
(million)
42
131
17
1
Btu's
(trillion)
244
757
98
6
Total 521 191 1,105
*From Scenario 3 on Table 8 in the Summary
Note: See footnotes to Table 8.
Examples of the effects of certain energy conservation measures
on other measures will be presented in the Energy Recovery and
Recycling sections. An overview of the combined energy savings from
-------
- 4 -
three possible energy conservation scenarios will be presented in the
Summary.
To put these four energy conservation opportunities in perspective
they should be understood in the context of the flow of materials from
acquisition of natural resources, through processing and manufacturing,
to product use and waste disposal.
Existing methods of materials use and waste generation have
two important consequences. First, a large portion (almost 50
percent) of the Nation's energy supply is consumed by the industrial
sector. For example, fuel is consumed by the equipment that removes
iron ore from the ground and transports the ore to the steel mill.
Then energy is used to melt the ore and process it into steel. Next,
energy is required for the equipment that transforms the steel into
usable products in the manufacturing process. Finally, energy is
consumed in the disposal operation (tractors on a landfill or in a
resource recovery system). And all along, energy is consumed in
transporting the material or product from each step to the next,
including the final transport step: waste collection. Therefore,
any reduction in the consumption of materials and products could
conserve energy. The section on Source Reduction will discuss this
further.
Secondly, conventional disposal methods--!andfill or incineration
without energy recovery—waste energy. A large portion of the materia
discarded into the waste stream are combustible and can be converted
-------
- 5 -
into energy, thereby conserving valuable fossil fuels. The waste
stream also contains valuable materials--steel, aluminum, paper,
glass—that can be recycled. Generally, although not in all cases,
it takes less energy to manufacture a product from recycled materials
than from virgin materials when all stages of materials acquisition,
processing, manufacturing, and transportation are considered. To
get a better appreciation for the opportunities for recovering
energy and recycling materials, a closer look at the waste stream
would be desirable.
The Haste Stream
EPA estimates that about 125 million tons of municipal wastes
were generated from residential and commercial sources in the U.S.
in 1971 (3.32 Ibs/person/day). Table 1 shows a breakdown of the
waste stream, cross-referenced by material and by product. Product
source categories are presented in millions (10^) of tons on an "As
Generated" basis. The materials in the waste stream are presented
in millions of tons on both an "As Generated" and an "As Disposed"
This waste generation rate is lower than the widely quoted 190
million tons/year (5.3 Ibs/capital/day) estimated in the 1968
National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices. The National
Survey was based on a sample of collected tonnage estimates (rather
than systematic measurements) that were extrapolated to a national
scale. These more recent estimates are primarily based on national
material production and product marketing data. It is the judgement
of EPA that these new figures are accurate to within approximately
25 percent and the 1968 survey over-estimated the national munici-
pal solid waste stream.
-------
0)
V)
O (A
iDio
r— 01 cn co o o OOCM
r— r— CnU3CO*a-C\jrOCOU3
|a>cn
r— l—CO
siDnpoud
s:pnpoad
pooj
pue
6UL41013
PUB
pus
SJ3UIB}U03
sauizBSBui
PUB 's>(0oq
1 1 1 CM 10 10
i— vo in o o CM
tea
0)
if
O
(A
X>
C
5
to
_J
et
0
^
,,
-------
- 7 -
basis. "As Generated" measures the weight of the material before
it is mixed with other wastes. "As Disposed" measures the weight
of the material after being mixed in trash cans and collection trucks.
The difference between the two is the result of the migration of
moisture from the wetter materials (food and yard wastes) to materials
that absorb moisture (note the increase in the weight of paper) and
to products to whose surface the moisture adheres (such as glass and
metals).
The figures in Table 1 include wastes generated in household,
commercial and business establishments and institutions (schools,
hospitals, etc.) and excludes industrial process wastes, agricultural
and animal wastes, abandoned automobiles, ashes, street sweepings,
construction and demolition debris, and sewage sludges. The 125
million ton figure includes only those materials discarded into the
waste stream and, therefore, excludes certain amounts of newsprint,
corrugated and other materials that are already being recycled.
Large quantities of agricultural, forestry and industrial
wastes and sewage sludge are generated each year. The amount of
energy recoverable from these wastes may be significant; however,
these wastes are not included in this analysis because the economic
feasibility of recovering energy from them has not been determined.
The amount of products consumed and wastes generated has been
growing at a rate estimated at 3 percent per year over the last
decade. The population increased about 13 percent during the 1960's.
-------
- 8 -
Although the population is growing slower now than in earlier years,
the generation of wastes continues to increase.
These trends indicate a projected 3 to 4 percent annual increase
in the amount of wastes generated in the years ahead. This means that
more wastes will be available for energy recovery and materials recovery.
More importantly, however, it means that the demand on supplies of
natural resources will be greater and that more energy will be required
to convert those resources into usable products. Thus, the need to
conserve energy and to consume fewer products should become more apparent.
-------
- 9 -
ENERGY CONSERVATION THROUGH SOURCE REDUCTION
Source reduction is defined as the reduction in the generation
of solid waste through a reduction in the consumption of materials
and products. There are four general approaches to achieve source
reduction:
1. Product reuse (e.g., returnable bottles)
2. Reduce resource intensiveness (e.g., smaller autos)
3. Increased product lifetime (e.g., longer lasting household
appliances)
4. Decreased product consumption (e.g., reduced packaging
consumption)
Table 1 indicates some of the broad product categories in the waste
stream that could be impacted by source reduction measures.
Almost invariably, any source reduction action will result in
the conservation of energy. Although the energy conservation impacts
of most of the many possible source reduction actions have not been
quantified, an estimate was made of the potential energy savings
resulting from a reduction in one product category, packaging, to
put the energy conservation potential of source reduction in per-
spective. If per capita packaging consumption in 1972 were reduced
to the levels that existed in 1958, over 560 trillion Btu's could
have been saved in 1972, the equivalent of 267,000 B/DOE (Appendix I),
-------
- 10 -
Another source reduction measure, affecting a portion of the
packaging category, is the substitution of refiliable (returnable)
beverage containers for nonrefillable (one-way) containers. Using a
refi11 able container saves at least half of the energy required to use
a nonrefillable bottle or can. If all beverages were shipped in
refiliable bottles in 1972 (and each bottle were used 10 times and returned
to the bottler in "piggy back" fashion on the return trips of the consumer's
automobile and the distributor's truck), about 244 trillion Btu's or
115,000 B/DOE could have been conserved.
It is significant to note that per capita consumption of materials
has grown considerably in recent years. Consumption of packaging
materials, for example, has grown at a rate of 2.8 percent per person
per year for the last 13 years. Based upon projected growth rates, the
energy that could be saved by returning to 1958 per capita packaging
consumption rates will be twice as large (1,174 trillion Btu's, or
555,000 B/DOE) in 1980 as in 1972.
The consumption of beverage containers has also grown, and continues
to grow, faster than population growth and the consumption of beverages.
For example, while the consumption of beer and soft drinks rose 29 percent
between 1959 and 1969, the consumption of beer and soft drink containers
rose 164 percent. Based upon projected trends continuing toward use of
nonrefillable beverage containers, if all consumers in 1980 use refillable
bottles (and these bottles are used 10 times), about 421 trillion Btu's
(70 percent more than the potential savings estimated for 1972) or about
198,000 B/DOE could be saved.
-------
- 11 -
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM WASTE
Theoretical Energy Potential
About 70 to 80 percent of residential and commercial wastes is
combustible with an energy content of about 9 million Btu's per ton.
Theoretically, if all solid waste in the U.S. had been converted into
energy in 1971, about 1.1 quadrillion (1.1 x 1015) Btu's per year would
have been generated. This is the equivalent of over 522,000 B/DOE, or
190 million B/YOE. The growth in population and per capita waste
generation would cause these figures to increase to 1,440 trillion Btu's
per year by 1980, or about 680,000 B/DOE or 248 million B/YOE. These and
other findings are summarized on Table 2. (Appendix II)
Available Energy Potential
Not all waste is available for energy recovery. Energy recovery
systems require large quantities (at least 200 to 250 tons per day)
of waste delivered for processing at one site in order to achieve
economies of scale. For this reason, energy recovery appears feasible
only in more densely populated areas, such as Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's). If energy recovery had been practiced in
all SMSA's in 1971, over 832 trillion (832 x 1012) Btu's would have
been recovered. This is equal to over 393,000 B/DOE, or 143 million
B/YOE. By 1980, the energy potentially recoverable from the SMSA waste
stream is projected to be about 1,085 trillion Btu's per year, the
equivalent of over 512,000 B/DOE, or 187 million B/YOE.
-------
- 12 -
TABLE 2
ENERGY POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE FROM WASTE
1971 1980
Btu's* B/DOE** B/YOE*** Btu's B/DOE B/YOE
(trillion) (thousand) (minion) (trillion) (thousand) (million)
Theoretical
Available
1,106
832
522
393
191
143
1,440
1,085
680
512
248
187
Projected
Implementations - 85 40 15
Potential
Candidates - 558 263 96
*Btu: British Thermal Unit
**B/DOE: Barrels per day of oil equivalent. (Assuming 5.8 million Btu's per
barrel of oil and 365 days per year.)
***B/YOE: Barrels per year of oil equivalent.
-------
- 13 -
Using solid waste as an energy source offers several distinct
benefits:
1. Replaces the use of fossil fuels.
2. Produces low sulfur oxide emissions because solid
waste has a low sulfur content.
3. Reduces the amount of land needed for disposal sites.
4. Is a readily available, growing—rather than depleting
--domestic source of energy.
-------
- 14 -
Projected Implementations of Energy Recovery Systems
At the present time, energy is being recovered from post-consumer
solid waste in only one location in the U.S.: in St. Louis, Missouri
at an EPA-supported demonstration plant operated by the City of
St. Louis and the Union Electric Company.
Interest in energy recovery is increasing across the country. Several
more systems (including another Federally supported demonstration plant)
will be operating before the end of 1975. About 40 additional communities
are seriously considering the recovery of energy from waste.
Based on energy recovery projects existing or planned at the present
time, it is projected that by 1980 almost 30 cities and counties around
the country should be operating the equivalent of about thirty-six
1,000 ton-per-day plants, recovering an estimated 85 trillion Btu's
per year, or 40,000 B/DOE, or 15 million B/YOE.
A list of communities where energy recovery systems are underway
or planned is included in Table 3. This list represents those
communities that have already taken definite steps (by conducting a
feasibility study, by vote of the county legislative body, or by some
similar step) towards implementation of an energy recovery system.
However, there are many other cities that are potential candidates
for energy recovery systems.
-------
- 15 -
TABLE 3
PROJECTED IMPLEMENTATIONS OF ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEMS BY 1980
State
Citv
Tons of Solid Waste
Per Day (1980)
California
San Diego
200
Connecticut
Bridgeport
1,20C
District of Columbia
Washington
1,000
Illinois
Iowa
Chicago 2,000
Chicago area, outside city 1,000
Ames 200
Maryland
Baltimore
Montgomery County
1,000
1,200
Massachusetts
Braintree
East Bridgewater
(near Brockton)
Lawrence
Saugus
(near Boston)
240
1,200
1,000
1,200
Missouri
St. Louis
8,000
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Essex County (Newark area) 1,000
Hackensack Meadowlands 2,000
Union County (Elizabeth) or
Middlesex County
(New Brunswick) 1,000
Albany 50°
Hempstead, L.I. 1,000
Monroe County (Rochester) 500
New York City 2,000
Westchester County
(White Plains) 1,500
Akron 1,000
Cleveland 500
-------
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Tennessee
- 16 -
TABLE 3, Continued
City
Eugene
Philadelphia
San Juan
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
Total Tons Per Day in 1980
Number of equivalent 1000 tons
per day plants
Energy recoverable in 1980
Tons of Solid Waste
Per Day
700
2,400
1,000
500
500
750
36,290
36
85 trillion Btu's
per year
40,000 barrels
per day of oil
equivalent
15 million barrels
per year of
oil equivalent
-------
- 17 -
Potential Candidates: Areas Where Local Conditions Favor
Energy Recovery
In some areas, there are certain local conditions that favor the
implementation of energy recovery systems. These include:
1. Economics - where disposal costs are high because inexpen-
sive close-by land is not available or because
alternative fuel costs are high.
2. Markets - where local market conditions exist to take
advantage of available technology. These
conditions include a boiler suitable for burn-
ing waste or a network for distributing steam
for heating downtown buildings.
3. Public - where public officials are likely to select
Interest energy recovery over other options because of
the popularity among their constituents of
energy recovery as an environmental or energy
issue.
Using these local conditions as screening criteria, EPA has
identified 48SMSA's as potential candidates for energy recovery.
These 48SMSA's are metropolitan areas that include at least 100 to
150 separate county or city governmental units. A list of these
SMSA's is included in Table 4. These are the areas where energy
recovery could be feasible by 1980, while the previous list (Table 3)
indicated recovery systems that are expected to be implemented. The
distinction between the two lists is the difference between actual
implementations and opportunities for implementation. The energy
recoverable from all the residential and commercial waste in these
48 areas in 1980 would be equal to over 263,000 B/DOE, or 96 million B/YOE,
-------
- 18 -
TABLE 4
POTENTIAL CANDIDATE AREAS (SMSA's)
FOR ENERGY RECOVERY IN 1974
with potential energy recoverable projected to 1980
Note: Recoverable energy is a function of waste generation,
which is a function of population
Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas
Population
1970
(thousands)
1. New York, New York
2. Chicago, Illinois
3. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4. Detroit, Michigan
5. Washington, D.C. - Md. - Va.
6. Boston, Massachusetts
7. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
8. St. Louis, Missouri
9. Baltimore, Maryland
10. Cleveland, Ohio
11. Newark, New Jersey
12. Minneapolis - St. Paul, Minnesota
13. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
14. Atlanta, Georgia
15. Cincinnati, Ohio
16. Patterson, New Jersey
17. San Diego, California
18. Buffalo, New York
19. Miami, Florida
20. Denver, Colorado
21. Portland, Oregon
22. Columbus, Ohio
23. Providence, Rhode Island
24. Rochester, New York
25. San Antonio, Texas
26. Louisville, Kentucky
27. Memphis, Tennessee
28. Albany, New York
29. Toledo, Ohio
30. Akron, Ohio
31. Hartford, Connecticut
32. Gary, Indiana
33. Jersey City, New Jersey
34. Nashville, Tennessee
35. Jacksonville, Florida
36. Wilmington, Delaware
37. Knoxville, Tennessee
11,572
6,979
4,818
4,200
2,861
2,754
2,401
2,363
2,071
2,064
1,857
1,814
1,404
1,390
1,385
1,359
1,358
1,349
1,268
1,228
1,009
916
911
883
864
827
770
722
693
679
664
633
609
541
529
499
400
-------
- 19 -
TABLE 4, Continued
38. Bridgeport, Connecticut
39. New Haven, Connecticut
40. Peoria, Illinois
41. Little Rock, Arkansas
42. Chattanooga, Tennessee
43. Madison, Wisconsin
44. Rockford, Illinois
45. Lawrence, Massachusetts
46. Charleston, West Virginia
47. Eugene, Oregon
48. Brockton, Massachusetts
389
356
342
323
305
290
272
232
230
213
190
Total population, 1970
71,786
Total population, 1980
78,462
Waste generation, 1980 (annual)
(daily)
62.0 million tons
170 thousand tons
Number of equivalent 1000 TPD plants
170
Energy recoverable
558 trillion Btu's per year
263,000 barrels per day of
oil equivalent
96 million barrels per
year of oil equivalent
-------
- 20 -
Energy Recovery Products
Solid waste can be used as or converted into any of five individual
energy products (Reference 1):
1. Steam
2. Solid fuel
3. Liquid fuel
4. Gaseous fuel
5. Electricity
To aid in conceptualizing the state of the art of energy recovery,
this section presents these five energy products and distinguishes them
from one another at the point of sale. This distinction is made be-
cause the selection of an energy recovery system will be made primarily
on the basis of marketing considerations; that is, the system will be
designed so that its products will be accepted by the potential customers
in the market.
Two of the five products—steam and electricity—are end-products.
Steam is also an intermediate product when it is used to generate
electricity. Solid, liquid and gaseous fuels are raw materials that
can be burned to produce either end-product, steam or electricity.
These fuels can come either from fossil resources (coal, oil or gas)
or from solid waste (shredded/classified waste-fuel, or pyrolysis oil
-------
- 21 -
or gas). Therefore, solid waste can be a source of energy, whether
it is sold as steam, fuel or electricity.
Steam
By burning solid waste in a water wall incinerator, steam can be
generated for use in (1) heating and cooling buildings (district
heating and cooling) and (2) industrial manufacturing.
Technically, steam recovery is the best-developed method for
recovering the energy value in solid waste. But marketing steam is
often a difficult task because (1) steam is not storable and (2) can
be transported only over very short distances. Nevertheless, many
cities have steam distribution networks already established.
The Nashville (Tennessee) Thermal Transfer Corporation, a private
non-profit corporation, will soon begin full scale operation of a facility
to produce steam and chilled water for heating and cooling downtown
buildings. The energy will be provided by a water wall incinerator fueled
entirely (except for emergency situations) by solid waste. Steam and
chilled water will be sold at prices that result in substantial savings
to customers. At the same time, the revenues from these sales will pay
for all capital and operating costs, including underground distribution
lines. Moreover, the City will be able to dump its waste at the plant at
no charge. (The City is responsible for disposing of the residue.)
Rather than build a new water wall incinerator to produce and sell
steam, it may be more economical to sell the waste as a fuel to supplement
the fossil fuels used in existing steam generating boilers.
-------
- 22 -
Solid Fuel
Solid waste can be sold in solid form as a substitute for conventional
fossil fuels in existing or newly designed combustion units. The major
markets for solid waste fuel are (1) utility boilers (2) industrial steam
and steam-electric boilers, and (3) district heating and cooling facilities
(i.e., heating downtown buildings).
The largest and most readily available boilers are electric
utility boilers. Because most of these boilers are suspension fired
(the fuel burns in mid-air in a residence time of one or two seconds),
the pieces of solid waste fuel must be reduced in size (by shredding,
milling or pulping) so that they can be burned in the boilers' short
residence time. Burning prepared solid waste as a supplement to coal
in an existing utility boiler has been demonstrated in St. Louis, Missouri.
This system is described in Energy Recovery from Waste. (Reference 2)
The prerequisite for this application is that the boilers
must be capable of handling ash--both bottom ash and fly ash. All
boilers designed to burn coal have ash handling equipment. Although
many coal-burning boilers were subsequently retrofitted to burn oil or
gas, the ash handling equipment is still operable in most cases.
Where the Boilers Are: A Survey of Electric Utility Boilers with
Potential Capacity for Burning Solid Waste as a Fuel (Reference 3)
describes the location, design characteristics and the refuse-burning
capacity of most of the utility boilers in the U.S. capable of burning
solid waste.
-------
- 23 -
Oil and Gas through Pyrolysis
To enable solid waste to be used in boilers that do not have
ash-handling capabilities, the solid waste can be converted into a
combustible liquid or gas using a process known as pyrolysis.
Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of organic substances in an
oxygen deficient atmosphere. The concept is under development by nearly
a dozen different private and public organizations. The primary
motivation is to develop a system wherein solid waste can be converted
into a storable, transportable fuel—either liquid or gas. Once this
is done, many of the constraints that limit the marketability of solid
waste as a fuel are minimized.
At this time, several pyrolysis systems have been demonstrated
at the pilot plant level, 4 to 150 tons per day, but no full-scale
systems are operational. Several plants will be operational within
the next year or two. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc. is building
a 1,000 ton per day gas pyrolysis plant in Baltimore, Maryland with
EPA support. Union Carbide Corporation is building a 200 ton per day
gas pyrolysis plant in South Charleston, West Virginia. And Garrett
Research & Development Corporation is building a 200 ton per day oil
pyrolysis plant in San Diego County, California, also with EPA support.
By 1980, sufficient experience should be gained to make this a viable
option for widespread implementation.
-------
- 24 -
Gas: Methane Recovered from Landfills
Gases are produced in land disposal sites as a result of the
microbiological decomposition of the organic matter (such as food, paper
and yard wastes) placed in the landfill. One of these gases is methane,
a combustible gas that is the main component of natural gas. These gases
can be recovered and used either as a fuel in engines designed to run on
methane or, after treatment to remove impurities, as a substitute for
natural gas in conventional commercial pipelines.
At the present time, methane is being recovered at only one site:
a pilot plant operated by the Los Angeles Power and Water Company on the
City of Los Angeles' Sheldon-Arleta Landfill. Plans are already underway
to expand this facility and another.
Methane recovery utilizes available technology, but there are still
several unknowns. The most important unknown is the length of time that
landfills will produce methane. Nevertheless, the economics of this
energy recovery option are becoming more favorable as the value of
natural gas increases.
Electricity
Instead of selling prepared waste as a solid fuel, solid waste can
be converted into electricity; and then the electricity can be sold.
vhere are two ways of doing this: steam-electric boilers and gas turbines.
These two options have significant shortcomings at the present time.
-------
- 25 -
The economics of steam-electric boilers are most favorable when they
are large enough to have economies of scale and when the heating value
per unit of volume of the fuel is high (and thus less boiler area is
required for combustion). Steam-electric boilers designed to burn only
solid waste appear to be less economical than boilers designed to burn
waste in combination with fossil fuels because (1) the heating value of
waste fuel per unit of boiler combustion area is lower than fossil fuels
and (2) the amount of waste that can be delivered economically to one
site is far lower than fossil fuels. Gas turbines using solid waste as
an energy source are encountering technical difficulties. Therefore,
at the present time, selling electricity produced from waste appears to
be an option that is less advanced than those discussed above.
Effect of Paper Recycling on Energy Recovery
Waste paper can be recycled as a fiber source; or it can be
converted to energy. (Recycled paper can be converted to
energy at a later time.) At the time of disposal, these options--
recycling or energy recovery—are mutually exclusive. Obviously,
the effect of removing paper from the waste stream is important in
the management and design of an energy recovery system.
-------
- 26 -
Paper can be removed from the waste stream in several ways:
1. Source separation: separating paper at the home or
factory for recycling before it is
mixed with other wastes during the
collection process
2. Hand picking: removal of bundled paper from the
mixed waste
3. Mechanical separation: removal of paper fiber by mechan-
ically processing the mixed waste
stream
Only certain types of paper products can be segregated at the
source and collected economically for recovery. (Reference 4)
These grades of paper, which account for about 47 percent of all the
paper in the waste stream are:
1. Newspapers from residential sources,
2. Corrugated from commercial and industrial sources, and
3. Mixed office papers
It is estimated that 40 to 60 percent 2 of this paper could
realistically be recovered. Expressed as a percentage of all the
paper in the waste stream, this represents a recovery rate of about
27 percent.
Available paper excludes the paper presently being redded; recovery
percentages would be higher if presently recycled paper were included,
-------
- 27 -
Table 5 shows the effect on the heating (energy) value of the
waste stream at various rates of recovery through source separation
of the available paper grades (newsprint, corrugated and mixed office
papers).
TABLE 5
EFFECT OF SOURCE SEPARATION
of Newspaper, Corrugated and Mixed office papers
Recovery Rate Reduction in Heating Value
(percent of all paper) of the Haste Stream (percent)
0% 0%
15 4
27 7
35 9
If energy recovery had been practiced in all SMSA's in 1972
simultaneously with a 35 percent rate of source separation and recycling
of paper, the amount of energy recoverable from waste would have been
reduced about 9 percent, from 393,000 B/DOE to 357,000 B/DOE. The energy
consequences of producing paper from recycled fiber will be discussed
in the following section.
-------
- 28 -
ENERGY CONSERVATION THROUGH RECYCLING
Recycling generally conserves energy: when two production systems
are compared—one using virgin materials and the other using recycled
(secondary) materials--the system using recycled materials most often
consumes less energy when all stages of materials acquisition, processing
and transportation are included.
The technical feasibility of recovering materials from the
municipal waste stream has been demonstrated. Had currently-known
technology been applied in 1972 to residential and commercial solid
wastes in metropolitan areas, almost 14 million tons of steel,
aluminum and glass could potentially have been recovered and substituted
for their virgin material counterparts.
Such a substitution, based on preliminary estimates, (Appendix III)
would have yielded a national primary energy saving of about 172 trillion
Btu's per year in 1972, or the equivalent of 80,000 B/DOE. Moreover,
the potential energy savings from recycling in the future is expected to
grow in proportion to projected increases in the consumption of
recyclable materials. (Table 6)
In the area of paper recycling, using recycled fiber in the paper
and paperboard production systems appears to require less energy than
using virgin woodpulp. However, no estimates of the potential energy
savings have been presented in this analysis for three reasons. First,
independently developed estimates on the energy effects of paper
-------
- 29 -
TABLE 6
:A7io::;-.L ENERGY SAVINGS FROM MAXIMUM POSSIBLE
RECYCLING CF ALUMINUM, FERROUS, AND GLASS
FRACTIONS OF PCST-CONSUYER SOLID WASTE
[TRILLIONS OF BTU'S]*
Materials**
Alu-i-.v,- 146-56%]
Ferrous [63-67%]
Glass [50-52%]
Total Energy
1972
82
81
8_
172
1975
115
87
13
215
1980
164
95
15_
274
1985
212
107
16_
335
1990
274
116
16_
406
*Energy savings are based on "total system" analyses which include
primary energy required for raw material acquisition and electricity
input as well as for principal refining processes.
**Figures in brackets indicate percentages of the individual material
in nation-wide solid waste assumed to be recoverable from a "maximum
possible" recovery effort. Lower percentages are for earlier years,
higher percentages for later years when larger proportions of popula-
is expected to reside in SMSA's and when extraction efficiency expected
to rise. Recovery quantities based on residential and commercial
solid waste only.
-------
- 30 -
recycling differ materially in certain significant quantitative details.
Until these estimates are systematically and thoroughly compared and
reconciled, meaningful data are not available. Secondly, the more energy
intensive virgin pulping operation typically derive at least part of
their energy requirements from bark and other wood wastes rather than
from fossil fuel sources. In some cases, by-product energy derived from
spent pulping liquors is sufficient to supply all of or more than the
pulping energy requirements. Thirdly, a satisfactory definition of the
"maximum possible" paper recycling scenario has not been developed, mainly
because there are a great many variables on both the supply and demand sides
of the waste paper utilization picture. Unlike the other three waste materials
previously estimated (aluminum, ferrous, and glass) the potential incremental
supply of post-consumer waste fiber supply would be not only a very large
fraction of total national fiber consumption, it could also be directed
(from a technical standpoint) into an almost infinite variety of product
use patterns.
Effect of Source Reduction on Recycling
It was mentioned earlier that implementation of one energy conservation
measure may reduce the benefits from another. One example of this is the
effect of source reduction on the potential energy savings from recycling.
Because source reduction will decrease the amount of materials available
for recycling, the potential energy savings resulting from recycling will
also be reduced by source reduction. Therefore, the energy savings from
-------
- 31 -
source reduction of recyclable materials and the energy savings from
recycling are not additive.
However, based on estimates involving beverage containers, the
energy savings from source reduction appear to be greater than the
energy savings from recycling. For example, as was noted earlier,
if all consumers had used only refillable bottles in 1972, about
244 trillion Btu's or 115,000 B/DOE could have been saved because of
source reduction.
But this source reduction action would have removed about 6.2
million tons of material from the waste stream that could have been
recycled. This assumes that steel and aluminum beverage cans would
not have been used because they cannot be refilled; it also assumes
that refillable bottles would make 10 "trips" (the original and 9
successive fillings). The effect on materials used, in millions of
tons, would have been as follows:
Beverage Container Beverage Container Beverage Container
Materials Used in 1972 Materials Used in an Materials Removed
All-returnable System from the Waste Stream
Aluminum
Steel
Glass
.5
2.0
6.2 2.5
.5
2.0
3.7
8.7 2.5 6.2
If these 6.2 million tons of materials had not been available for
recycling in 1972 because of an all-refillable bottle program, the effect
on Table 6 above would have been as follows:
-------
- 32 -
Materials
Energy Savings
from Maximum
Possible Recycling
1972
(trillion Btu's)
Energy Savings
"Lost" because
of use of Refiliable
Bottles-1972
(trillion Btu's)
Energy Savings
from Recycling
when only Refillable
Bottles are used
1972
(trillion Btu's)
Aluminum
Ferrous
Glass
82
81
_8
172
55
16
J2
73
27
65
_6
98
Thus, if an all-refillable bottle program were in effect in 1972,
250 trillion Btu's could have been saved because of source reduction,
but the energy savings from recycling would have been reduced by
73 trillion Btu's. In terms of barrels per day of oil equivalent, 115,000
B/DOE could be saved because of this source reduction measure, while
the potential savings from recycling would be reduced by 34,000 B/DOE
(from 80,000 B/DOE to 46,000 B/DOE).
-------
- 33 -
ENERGY CONSERVATION THROUGH IMPROVED COLLECTION
The preceding sections focused on the energy conservation impacts
associated with producing and recycling the waste materials themselves.
An additional energy conservation opportunity is associated with the
collection of solid waste. Solid waste collection is highly dependent
on fuel, but there are several short and long range steps which can
be taken to conserve energy (Reference 5).
Background
Solid waste collection and land disposal consume 287 million
gallons of gasoline and 326 million gallons of diesel fuel per year.
Of these figures, collection operations consume approximately all of
the gasoline and half of the diesel fuel. Almost three-quarters of
the fuel used for solid waste collection is consumed in residential
collection.
Use of diesel fuel for solid waste collection and disposal is
about 3.6 percent of all highway use of diesel fuel. Use of gasoline
for solid waste collection is about 1.6 percent of all truck use
of gasoline.
Energy Conservation Measures
The following short range steps could be taken to reduce energy
requirements for residential solid waste collection:
-------
- 34 -
1. If communities that presently collect solid waste twice a
week were to collect only once a week, those communities
could save 29 percent of the fuel used for collection.
2. Communities with separate collection of food waste could
essentially halve their fuel requirements by collecting all
wastes at once. However, separate collection of newspaper
and other materials for resource recovery should be encouraged
because the energy saved in the recycling process typically
offsets the additional fuel required for collection.
3. A savings of 5 percent could be made in those communities
which have poor routing.
4. Other short term changes include:
a. Improved storage practices
b. Conversion from backyard to curbside pick-up
c. Minimizing separate pick-ups for bulky items
d. Placing waste in clusters or on one side of the street
e. Reducing street sweeping operations
Long term actions include use of transfer stations where warranted,
use of better and properly sized collection equipment, elimination of
situations where several private collectors operate on the same street,
and location of disposal sites nearer to population centers.
-------
- 35 -
Impact
On a national basis, it is estimated that 18.2 million gallons of
diesel fuel and 39.1 million gallons of gasoline per year would have been
saved by changing from twice-a-week to once-a-week collections (excluding
inner-city areas) and by using better routing patterns for collection.
This is based on levels of service and equipment utilization in the
1972-1973 time period. This savings is the equivalent of 3,000 B/DOE.
-------
- 36 -
SUMMARY
The energy conservation measures described above could be combined
in a variety of ways. Table 8 presents the "maximum feasible" energy
conservation benefits from three sample scenarios. Note that energy
recovery and recycling of noncombustible materials are compatible. Note
also in Scenario 2 that, when paper is recycled, the overall fossil fuel
conservation potential is reduced; however, there are resource
conservation and other environmental impacts associated with recycling
paper that may offset a reduction, if any, in potential energy savings.
And note that the combination of source reduction and recycling
(Scenario 3) offers a larger potential energy savings than either
option by itself.
Of the three scenarios depicted in Table 8, Scenario 3 offers the
greatest potential benefits, 521,000 B/DOE. This is a significant
quantity of energy. By comparison, 521,000 B/DOE is equal to:
7 percent of all the fuel consumed by utilities in 1970
(7.1 million B/DOE
14 percent of all the coal consumed by utilities in 1970
(3.7 million B/DOE)
35 percent of the oil projected to be delivered through the Alaskan
Pipe Line (1.5 million B/DOE)
52 percent of the crude oil imported directly from the Middle East in
Sept., 1973 (1.0 million B/DOE)
1.5 percent of all energy consumed in the U.S. in 1970
(32.5 million B/DOE)
-------
- 37 -
Table 8
Combined Energy Savings from Three "Maximum Possible"
Energy Conservation Scenarios for 1972
(thousand barrels per day of oil equivalent)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Energy Recovery,
Energy Recovery Energy Recovery Paper and Materials
Recycling and Recycling, Improved Recycling, Improved
Improved Collection Collection and Collection and
Source Separation Source Reduction
Energy Recovery
Recycling^
Improved Collection
Source Separations
Source Reduction^
393
80
3
-
_
:al 476
3571
80
3
N.A.
_
440
3571
46
3
N.A.
115
021
^Energy content of wastes reduced 9 percent by source separation. See note 3.
^Recycling of noncombustible materials: aluminum, glass and steel.
•^Source separation and recycling of newsprint, corrugated and mixed office waste
papers at a recovery rate of 35 percent of the paper in the waste stream.
Source reduction refers to the beverage container example described above:
it assumes that all consumers used refillable bottles and that each bottle
made 10 trips.
N.A. - Data on the energy savings from recycling paper are not
available. See page 28.
-------
- 38 -
REFERENCES
1. Levy, S. J. Energy recovery markets and technology.
(In preparation.)
2. Lowe, R. A. Energy recovery from waste; solid waste
as supplementary fuel in power plant boilers.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-36d.ii.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.
24 p.
3. Gordian Associates, Inc. Where the boilers are; a
survey of electric utility boilers with potential
capacity for burning solid waste as a fuel. (In
preparation.)
4. Holloway, J. R. The effect of removing paper on the
fuel value of solid waste. (In preparation.)
5. Shuster, K. A. Analysis of fuel consumption for solid
waste management. (In preparation.)
-------
- 39 -
APPENDICES
I National Energy Savings from Source Reduction—Packaging:
An Estimate of Possible Impact, by Michael Loube
II Methodology for Determining the Amount of Energy Potentially
Recoverable from Waste, by Robert A. Lowe
III National Energy Savings from Materials Recycling: Some
"Maximum Possible" Estimates for Ferrous Metals,
Aluminum and Glass, by Frank A. Smith
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FROM SOURCE REDUCTION
PACKAGING: AN ESTIMATE OF POSSIBLE IMPACT
by Michael Loube
Introduction
Source reduction is defined as the reduction in consumption of
materials and products which also results in a reduction in the generation
of wastes. The source reduction concept has grown out of the thesis that
solid waste is an effluent theoretically easier to reduce than dispose.
Almost by definition most source reduction actions will result in energy
savings.
There are four major technical approaches that can be used to achieve
source reduction. They are: 1) reuse of products, 2) reduced resource
intensity of products, 3) increased lifetime of products, and 4) decreased
consumption of products. The energy savings in the packaging sector
described in this paper concern two of these approaches. First, there is
an analysis of the energy savings arising from the reuse of the beverage
(beer and soft drink) container portion of packaging materials. Secondly
there is an analysis of the energy savings achieved if the consumption
of all packaging materials (other than beverage containers) could be
reduced.
Findings
1. Reuse of Beverage Containers
A source reduction program tailored toward the reuse of beer
and soft drink containers (Tables 1-2) will produce a substantial
reduction in total energy required for the consumption of beverages.
A shift from the current mix of one-way and refiliable beverage
containers to a system of all refillable containers (the average
container being used ten times) would have saved in 1972 a total of
244 trillion Btu's. This potential energy savings is equivalent
to about 115,000 barrels of oil, or slightly more than .3% of the
nation's total primary energy (fossil fuels plus hydroelectric plus
nuclear). By 1980, given the anticipated growth in beverage consumption
and shifts between container types, the annual savings that would be
generated from a switch to an all refillable system would have
increased to approximately 421 trillion Btu's (about 200,000 barrels
of oil per day).
-------
1-2
2. Reduced Consumption of Packaging (Excluding Beverage Containers)
The energy savings achievable from a source reduction measure
that would reduce the consumption of packaging (other than beverage
containers) were also estimated (Table 3). Since packaging must
protect the product an attempt was made to set as a maximum reduction
only the removal of "excess" packaging. This was estimated by
identifying the maximum reduction possible as equivalent to 1958
packaging consumption (i.e., the percentage of each material used
in packaging in 1958 was assumed to remain constant). Economic
growth and increased product consumption since 1958 was then estimated
(equal to the increase in non-durable goods purchased) and total
packaging consumption was increased to derive a goal for reduced
packaging.
The potential energy savings from reduced packaging (excluding
beverage containers) would have been, in 1971, 322 trillion Btu's.
This savings is equivalent to about 150,000 barrels of oil
per day or about .5% of the nation's total primary energy. By
1980, the annual savings that would be generated by decreased
packaging consumption would have increased to 753 trillion Btu's
(about 356,000 barrels of oil per day).
3. Energy Savings, all packaging materials
These two source reduction measures (reuse of beverage con-
tainers, and reduced packaging consumption) are additive (Table 4)
Therefore the total energy savings potentially available in the
packaging area are:
1) In 1971, 566 trillion Btu's (equivalent
to 267,000 barrels of oil per day, or
18% of total primary energy)
2) In 1980, 1174 trillion Btu's (equivalent
to 555,000 barrels of oil per day, or
1.7% of present total primary energy
demand)
4. Alternative Energy Saving Mechanisms
While source reduction measures designed to reduce or reuse
packaging materials provide substantial energy savings, they do
impact other potential resource recovery mechanisms. The poten-
tial impact en three resource recovery techniques is discussed
-------
1-3
below. Impacts are identified for: 1) Separate Collection,
2) Materials Recovery Systems, and 3) Energy Recovery Systems.
A. Separate Collection - Most separate collection activity
currently centers on newspapers being segregated by the house-
holder. Source reduction of packaging materials would have no
impact on this activity.
A few cities have tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to collect
bottles and cans separately. Reuse of beverage containers would
probably eliminate the need and potential economic viability of
this activity.
Separate collection of corrugated boxes (a packaging material)
is practiced (and currently increasing) by some commercial establishments.
Since source reduction would probably be accomplished by changing
the design of this packaging material in such a way as to use less
material or to be reusable, or both, source reduction and separate
collection of corrugated packaging could be complementary activities.
Both are aimed toward reducing the ultimate waste disposal of
packaging materials.
B. Materials Recovery Systems - Few municipal materials recovery
systems are currently in existence, but numerous cities are examining
their potential (either by themselves or in conjunction with energy
recovery systems). If these systems had operated in all metropolitan
areas in 1972, the energy saved by recycling the aluminum, glass,
and ferrous portions of post-consumer solid waste would have been
172 trillion Btu's (or the equivalent of about 80,000 barrels of
oil per day). A source reduction measure designed to reuse beverage
containers while saving 244 trillion Btu's would reduce the potential
savings from materials recovery (Table 5) by 73 trillion Btu's.
Therefore, material recovery by itself could save 172 trillion
Btu's; source reduction of beverage containers by itself could
save 244 trillion Btu's. Combined, the two measures would save
343 trillion Btu's as follows:
Energy Savings from Recycling and Source Reduction Combined
Energy savings from recycling alone 172
less: energy savings "lost" when
recycling and source reduction
measures are combined 73
Net savings from recycling 99
-------
1-4
plus: energy savings from source
reduction (refillable bottle
program) 244
Total savings from Combined
Measures 343
This analysis assumes that the glass remaining in the waste
stream with a refiliable beverage container system would not be
easier to recover for recycling than it is now. This would
probably not be true since most glass bottles (even though not
refiliable because of cracks or chips) would be returned to the
supermarket or bottler. The glass bottle waste stream would
no doubt be substantially segregated from the general waste
stream and therefore easier to recover.
However the effect on energy savings would be small. An
additional 0.7 trillion Btu's would be saved (assuming glass
recovery efficiency would increase from 50% for normal municipal
recovery to 70% for recovery from a segregated glass bottle waste
stream).
C. Energy Recovery Systems - Few municipal energy recovery systems
are currently in existence, but numerous cities are examining their
potential. If these systems had operated in all metropolitan areas
in 1972, the energy available for use would have been about
832 trillion Btu's.
Source reduction of packaging materials would remove some of
the organic (combustible) materials from the waste stream. This
would result in a reduction in the energy available to energy
recovery systems in the amount of 82.4 trillion Btu's (Table 6).
Energy recovery by itself could save 832 trillion Btu's (see
Table 2 in the text); removing combustible materials by source
reduction would reduce the energy recovery potential by 82 trillion
Btu's to 750 trillion Btu's. However, this 750 trillion Btu savings
would be added to the 322 trillion Btu saving attributable to source
reduction, for a combined savings of 1,072 trillion Btu's.
-------
1-5
5. Net Source Reduction Savings
The total potential energy savings from source reduction of
packaging materials including beverage containers would amount
to about 566 trillion Btu's in 1972. Various combinations of
source reduction approaches, materials recovery and energy
recovery systems would provide increased energy savings (Table 7)
If all three systems were in existence in 1972, the energy saved
would have amounted to 1,415 trillion Btu's.
-------
Page 1-6
oi tn
tn 4J -
C in P
-H >* 4J
> H co CQ
(tf rH
w < o) c
rH O
>, MH ^1 -H
tn O Id rH
H C rH
01 M -H
W
4-1 4J
01 —
(N
n
•sf
"*
(N
tn
a)
•H
2
fU
c c
o o
-HU
u ^;
3 c
t3 *H
01 r4
01 4J
o u-i
r4 O
3 CO
o
CO
tn 01
Cn 0)
£ CQ
•a
rH C
ti in
01 -
I 3
in m
c
0 C
CJ 0
•H
C^rH
^•1 -H
0) M
d jJ
W ^-
rH iH
rfl 3
4J
$
4-1
01
tn
0)
ft
01
tn
CO
6
01
4-1
tn
to
-a • ~
01 N in
M O -
3 C 4-i
& 0 PQ
0) -H
tf rH C
H o
>, -H -H
Cn S rH
M rH
0) Vi -rH
C 01 G
o
in
in
)H
01
o
U
0)
01
o
o
tn
01
MH
o
^
0)
c
o
u
01
Cn
id
01
M
01
c
in
o
tn
•H
tn
MH
O
iH
ITS rH
to ft
>i tn
tn 3
V) 01
01 K
a
w
•a
0)
0) ^->
•H N
rH O
01
Q C
0
01 -H
tn rH
Id rH
M -H
0) g
01
01
Q C
id S
rH G 4-1
rH ,4 W
rt 3 >
4-1 W
01
in
vo
•.
PN.
o
o
*.
rH
c e
01 0)
in 4-1
•H
4-1
in
o
M
id
01
tn
id
M
Q
D
4-1
•H
4-1
in
C
u
M
id
0)
in
01
•H
4-> 01
a a
o
u
-------
§
01 en
tn -P -
G cn 3
•rH >i -P
> H cn pq
(0 •-!
w < ,14H .Q -H
tji O Id r-H
rl C rH
01
C
H
rl -rH
P M
Page 1-7
0)
•rl
id
•P 01
G D.
O >•
O EH
in
o
CN
r-j
CN
CN
CN
CO
CO
i
e
id ui
Cn oi
0 C
M -H
CL, id
•P
G G
O 0
•H U
.p
O ^
P G
•O -H
0) iH
K Q
^-^
01 -P 0
o IH co
MO cn
P W rH
O ~
CO Tj
G
m id
o
M
Ul 0)
Cn 01
G pq
•H
> 01
id H
W3
>1 Ul
cn P
M 01
0) U\
G
W
, — ,
•a ui
01 -
g 3
P -P
w PQ
G
0 C
u o
•H
J>1 1 — \
Cn H
rM -H
(U rl
C -P
W *"
01
rH B
X! o> cn
id -P m
rH C Ul CN
rH rl >1
< P W
4->
01
A
•a
01
-P E
rj 01 ^
oi -P m
•n Ul
O >i
M CO
cu
•o • --~
0) N Ul
H O -
•H P
O1 O PQ
01 -H
PH rH C
rH O
>1 -rl -H
Cn g rH
M rH
01 rl -H
C 01 E
W P< ^
^
CO
rH
T3
01
MrH
01 ^
•H N
rH 0
Q C
O
01 -H
CP rH
Id rH
rl -H
01 g
01
PQ
0)
H O
A E CO
id a) cn
rH G -P
rH M Ul ID
rtj p >i O
4J W -31
01
PH rH
•a
0)
•P E ^
U 0) l>*
01 -P VD
•n tQ -
O >i m
M CQ cn
Pw CN
CN
H
CN
1X1
CN
CN
O
in
in
ro
m
fN
in
co
co
en
cn
o
n
01 -P
rH 4J
I"
rH 01
3 Ul
•p id
•P
+J
! «
i
^4
O
o
0
0)
Pi
01
0
JH
0
Ul
0)
p*
'[ )
o
Ul
4J
Ul
id
u
01
S-l
o
Pu
0)
C
•rH
0)
CO
(d
PQ
.p"
^
a
Q)
a
•p
id
!H
Q
01
.p
r3
+j
•H
.p
Ul
C
H
_£
O
id
-------
Page 1-8
3
§
1
e
id
rl
O1
O
ft
G
O
•rl
4-1
0
•d
01
K
01
o
3
o
Ul
0
01
Oi
c
•H
id
CO
N^
&
01
G
U
. —
n
JH
0)
G
•H
id
4J
O
U
QJ
Qn
id
01
£»
0)
«
&1
G
•H
T3
3
iH
O
X
Ul
H
id
•rl
01
•p
(rt
J£
C
•H
O1
It)
X
o
ft
•o
0)
0]
id
o>
u
0)
Q
^^
O
00
Ol
rH
«>
r^
Ol
rH
Ol
01
G
H
rH
id
•H
•M
G
01
4J
O
ft
•P
G
01
§
•rl
3
O1
01
K
J>1
^
01
C
u
rH
id
•rl
rl
0)
•P
S
H
id
•H
4-1
G
01
4->
O
00
in
Ol
H
4->
id
C
o
•H
•p
&
3
tn
G
8
01
3
•P
Oi
a C
•rl 0
> -H
Id r-H
M H
•rl
M
4J
n
"tn
G 4-1
O PQ
•P
T]
rl G
01 ra
ft 0}
p
j-l
4J
o
00
Ol
rH
rH
r^
Ol
H
^^
01
G
O
in -p
Oi
G -0
•rl C
> id
id tn
tn 3
o
5
0
00
01
rH
i-H
r~
Ol
H
01 CM
01 'to
> G
01 O
rH i)
nj *rt
4-1 G
•rl 5
ft 01
id 3
o o
fj
rl 4J
0 «—
ft
o
CO
Oi
H
H
01
rH
S-i
•H tn
•P G
ft 0
3 *"
01 H3
O fd
u to
H 8
4J |*
o ^*
gH
o
CO
Ol
rH
rH
01
rH
CO
in
Ol
H
id
•rl
M
01
4J
id
z
Oi
G
•rl
Oi
(d
o
id
ft
o
(
m
r-
in
00
r-
VD
CN
o
o
CO
•.
o
^
n
M1
0
..
rH
00
ID
in
^
kD
n
o
in
CN
Pi
rH
rH
CN
CO
0
..
Ol
0
0
-
r«
CN
CN
in
in
».
vD
t i
^
ft
id
ft
0
IO
rH
^^
^_^
o>
1
n
CN
~
VO
in
CN]
fc
in
i-H
^^
CN
in
o
*
rH
^*,
in
kO
in
V
rH
O
kO
«.
f^
in
^*
„.
^O
§
*.
VD
0
o
O
rl
ft
4J
C
01
E
01
id
I
01
4J
01
id
S
T3
•rl
H
o
to
IH
0
01
o
•rl
MH
O
ection Agency, Publication
ce, 1974. 112 p.
4J
O
rl
ft
,_,
id
-P
G
01
6
o
•H
>
W
I
C
0
•H
4->
0
=1
•o
01
rl
01
O
rl
3
O
01
-d
id
^••l
^j
01
ecov
rl
•rl
IH
MH
O
Oi
•H
4J
G
• rl
rl
ft
.Jj
(1)
g
5
H
01
>
S
•
w
D
^
§
.p
G
•H
Xi
01
S
•
CN
CN
H
i
U)
rials mix (i.e. the percentage of eac:
nt) . Economic growth, and increased
total packaging required by a growth
0)
4-1
id
O<
c
•H
Oi
id
o
id
CO
m
Ol
rH
4J
C
01
rH
id
>
•rl
&
01
id
48
G
B
01
IH
id
tn
01
3
01
01
id
4J
01
O
o
Ol
ft
o
4-1
rrj
0)
tn
01
id
tn
•rl
o>
c
•H
Oi
id
o
ft
G
•rl
rrt
01
01
H
id
•rl
4-1
g
Oi
G
in
id
01
rl
o
G
•H
>1
SH
o
IH
•0
til
S
0
H
rH
id
01
•rl
d.
purchased) .
01
"8
o
Oi
01
rH
ft
id
a
•d
i
c
o
G
G
•H
01
01
id
01
H
•rl
Oi MH
C 0
•H
>
•H
rH
MH
O
01
•d
rl
id
•d
S
01
0)
•P
id
H
01
4J
*— *
rl
S
o
id
IH
Materials Industries, EPA
o
•rl
01
id
pa
X
•rl
t/1
rl
O
O
•H
4-1
ft
£3
u
G
o
u
&
rl
01
G
01
01
4J
•H
01
03
^
S
•H
13
rl
S
(
4J
M
a
PH
4-1
a
Q
m the Btu's contained in the raw
o
rl
IH
1
•rl
rl
01
•d
01
•H
01
3
i-H
id
>
s*1
tn
rl
01
c
1
rH
01
•p
X
o
ft
•
01
H
01
3
MH
•8
01
id
o
M
ft
e
o
rl
MH
4-1
§
^^
'O
Q
1
rH
id
•rl
rl
41
4J
g
-------
Page 1-9
w —
o o
Q O
x o
CQ -^
(0 CP
CO C
•H W
' >i tP H
I tr> nj dJ
M >: -H
0) U rH
C ctf 0)
rS
4J
o
in
LD
in
i
o
M C
O< O
•rH
C -P
O ft
•H S
-P 3
u w
3 C
•o o
0) U
(^
Cn
Q) C
O -H
>H tn
s a
O X
w u
rt)
MH fo
o
-d
ca n
(0 U
r?
(U
C
w
0)
A W
B -P rH
00(0
M -H
§S
Q O
\ O
CO -'
•a
0)
(U
m
< ffl
£ aj
0 G E
^ -H (U
fc. iti +J
-P W
•O G >t
Q) O CO
> U
0)
0) «
m
S8
^2
tN
LO
Energy Si
Leduction :
Packaging
3
m
c
0
-H
rH
rH
CN n
cs in
n r^
CTl
en
+J
G
-------
Page 1-10
(d G Cn
SH 0) C
SH
ft
G
O
•H
4-1
O
3
-a
01
P3
-p
o
G O
O 0)
03
0)
Ul ui
3 rH
0) 1C
M 0)
4) 4-1
•SI
01
o
SH id
3 4-1 B
O C O
co o SH
U MH
O tt> u)
Cn Cn
ui id G
G 0) >
•rl J> Id
> 0) CO
id m
CO >i
MH Cn
>i O SH
Cn 0)
SH 4J G
0 O W
d id
W Q,
S
r- 1
iti
ij
G
0)
4J
O
Ul
rH >, S
•H tt) O1 G 4-1
H > SH "H B> G
tt) O 4) r> Q 0
4J O G H) r-1 -rl
IS d) W tO = H
S 03 rH
•H
4-1
In
•O 3
>i in G a> 4J
Cn C" O rH W
SH C H 0
tt) -H >i G
G > SH O O
W id tt) a) -H
tO P< 03 tH
•n
Ul
c
rH TJ 0
Id 0) -P
•H SH
SH 4-1 tt) G
tt) 0 > 0
4-1 ,3 O -rl
Id O rH
S tt) rH
B3 -rl
Ul
0) rH
rH idro
-P Xi -rl >1
C n) SH SH
tt) SH tt) 0)
O tt> 4-> >
in > id 0
01 O S O
0,0 0)
0> >i 03
03 ,Q
S in
id G
rH 0) tt) O
id t) ,c SH 4J
•rH 01 4J 4J
>H > CO G
DOE O
4J g O tt) -rl
id 0) SH 4-) rH
g 03 MH Ul rH
id -H
in
in ID CM n
in rH r-
n
O CM rH
0 rH 1
CN
ro O O ro
r- o in CM
CM CO CO "31
• • • •
rH rH CO
o m o
in <£ m I
in o o in
^3" O O M1
in o r- IN
• * « •
CM ro <£>
CM
•O 0) 13 — .
tt) iH o) in
in .Q 4-> c
D id Ul O
iH -rl 4J
U) rH X CM
H IH -rl W t- C
Id -H MH CTi O
•rl 0) B rH -H
S-l SH O) rH
01 1 4J rH
4-S rH in -rl
id rH >i E
a < to ~
in
SH rH
•O 1) ^
01 C Ul
M -rl G
ID id C
4-1 -P
in G CM
rH C O C- G
id -H U en C
•rl rH -H
SH 0) rH
0) Cn rH
4-1 Id -r-
id SH j=
J>
0)
CQ
O O
1 1 O O
in in
• •
CM CM
in o o in
^r o o <3*
in o CM r~
• • t •
CM ^Q 00
g
3
d
• H rH Ul iH
g tt) in id
3 o) id -P
rH 4-1 rH O
ft tO U EH
Congress; resource
S
4J
SH
a
0)
^J
T3
C
O
u
0)
co
•
m
6
(3
SH
O
SH
Oj
•P
G
tt)
g
01
Cn
id
a
td
|£j
a>
-U
(0
irJ
j^
•a
•rH
rH
O
CO
MH
0
tt)
o
•H
MH
MH
O
gency, Publication
<
G
o
•H
4J
o
0)
4J
o
SH
PL,
H
5
G
(!)
2
O
Jt4
•rH
>
G
H
•
G
O
•H
4J
U
rrj
tt)
^_|
0)
o
SH
3
O
Ul
rrj
C
id
>i
SH
0)
>
O
o
01
SH
CM
rH
r^r
[^
Ol
rH
^
tt)
O
•H
MH
O
Cn
G
•H
4-1
C
•H
SH
4-1
G
tt)
2
SH
01
S
.
W
•
0
V
G
O
Cn
G
•r(
.G
Ul
Ifl
.
CM
CM
rH
1
to
in
•H
w
rH
n)
G
u
•rl
G
S
1)
Cn
«
tt)
4-1
^
a
s
4J
MH
id
SH
Q
*
0)
4J
•H
4J
in
G
H
43
U
^J
id
0)
Ul
03
4_)
Ul
tt)
S
•rt
S
G
O
73
in
id
£>
in
•rl
in
rH
rd
£l
rtj
r-C
pj
H
tream, recovery efficiency of
in
tt)
•p
Ul
id
S
rH
id
O
4-1
MH
O
tip
CM
[^
11
>
•H
0)
O
D
•O
rH
3
o
in
01
4-1
Ul
co
>1
0)
o
o
tt)
P3
rH
id
Oi
•H
O
•rl
£
•J
S
•
(*>
o
r-
G
•H
3
rH
id
h
t*>
o
Ol
rH
ttl
4-1
in
^
lift
O
r-
in
in
id
rH
Cn
>• •
Ul Ul
•rH -H
Ul
§ .H1
4-1 Id
ui c
Ul
r^C
PM
W
3
4-1
C
O
•H
rH
H
•H
SH
4-1
CM
Ul
G
•H
id
in
SH
tt)
0)
tt)
4J
G
id
4J
SH
tt)
rH
rH
g
Ul
in
•rl
in
3
4-1
«
G
O
•rl
rH
rH
•H
SH
4-1
CO
[^
MH
O
^
Ul
Ul
O
^
*>i
Cn
SH
tt)
G
tt)
U)
•rl
_("•}
EH
•
Ul
SH
tt)
G
•H
id
4->
G
o
o
01
en
id
SH
01
^
0)
_Q
Cn
G
•rl
Ul
3
0)
SH
e
0
SH
MH
-------
TABLE 6 T ,.
Page 1-11
Energy Savings of Source Reduction Program-
Impact of Reduced Packaging Consumption on Potential
Recovery of Energy from Solid Waste
_ Plastics Total
Potential Materials Savings
from Reduced Packaging
Consumption (million tons) 6.6 2.4 9.0
less: Portion not entering
the waste stream (million
tons) 2.02 .43 2.4
Net amount of materials not
available to the total
waste stream 4.6 2.0 6.6
less: 28 percent, the
waste generated outside
of SMSA's4 1.3 .6 1.9
Net amount of materials not
available to the SMSA
waste stream4 3.3 1.4 4.7
Btu's per ton of combustible
material (million Btu's)5 14.8 24.0
Btu's not available to
energy recovery systems
(trillion Btu's) 48.8 33.6 82.46
(1) From Table 3.
(2) It was estimated that 30 percent of the paper does not enter the
municipal waste stream because of recycling and diversions into
other waste streams (water, industrial waste, scrap, etc.).
(3) It was estimated that 15 percent of the plastics does not enter the
municipal waste stream for the reasons stated in Note 2, above.
(4) In the estimates of energy recoverable from solid waste, it was
assumed that energy recovery is feasible only in SMSA's
(Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas), where economies of
scale can be realized.
(5) Assuming paper at 7,400 Btu's per pound and plastic at 12,000 Btu's
per pound.
(6) This energy "loss" of 82.4 trillion Btu's is smaller than the energy
savings (322.5 trillion Btu's) from reduced packaging consumption.
-------
Page 1-12
CN
f-
P-
[•Tj
3
m
EH
I
£
rl
(j\
O
)H
ft
fj
O
•H
4->
U
3
H3
S
0)
U
SH
3
O
CO
UH
O
Ul
Cn
C
•H
>
(C
CO
>|
rl
a)
c
H
Ul
o
•rl
^
S
i O
rl H
0) rH
C -rl
W ^1
4J
"(U
rH
X)
•H
01
01
O
ft
|
g
•rl
X
^1
o
^1
(d
0)
u
CO
c
o
•H
-P
U
•d
S
(U
o
rj
0
to
n
0
•H
SH
id
c
(U
u
CO
CN
O
•H
id
a
(D
u
CO
rH
O
•rl
SH
id
c
(U
o
CO
N
rl
4>
6
o
CU
«
^1
tJ^
^j
41
a
w
>l
Q)
^
o
o
rt
^f
Cn
0)
a
w
c
o
•rt
-P
o
3
*d
0
pcj
0)
o
3
o
CO
c
0
•H
4->
o
3
•d
0)
0)
0
Vl
3
o
CO
'O
id
•o
a
id
•a
n
id
•a
id
a)
o
o
0)
PH
rH
id
•H
^
4)
4J
id
S
SH
0)
O
O
(1)
frt
Ul
H
id
•H
(U
4J
S
r7
(U
^
o
u
(D
PH
Ul
H
id
•H
M
V
a
S
^
M
0)
^
o
o
0)
Pi
^
Cn
i-i
0)
W
(N
(N
CO
01
CN
CN
CO
CN
CN
CO
in
rH
•<*
CN
ro
00
o
o
01
ffl
in
us
o
in
CO
•-H
O
•H
4J
O
3
•a
«
0)
u
rl
3
O
CO
Beverage
(ii
rH
•9
Ul
3
S
•
rtj
01
rl
0)
C!
•H
4J
O
0
O
•rl
4J
01
rt
O
U
•d
(U
o
3
•d
S
•
pa
Other Packaging
rH
rH
<
UH
o
^i
j_i
-------
APPENDIX II
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY
POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE FROM WASTE
by Robert A. Lowe
Theoretical Energy Potential
The amount of energy that could theoretically have been recovered
from all the residential and commercial solid waste generated in the
U.S. in 1971 is estimated to be 1.1 quadrillion (1.1 X 1015) Btu's
(British Thermal Units) (Table 2 in the text). This is simply a func-
tion of (1) the total U.S. population in 1970 (207.0 million); (2) the
average amount of residential and commercial solid waste generated
(3.32 pounds per person per day, or 125 million tons per year for
the entire country); and (3) the energy content of residential and
commercial solid waste (4500 Btu per pound).
By 1980, the amount of energy theoretically recoverable from waste
is projected to be 1.4 quadrillion Btu's. The increase over 1971 is the
result of the projected growth in population and the projected growth
in the amount of waste generated per person. The population growth
rate reflects the 1970 Series E projections (an increase of 9.3 per-
cent between 1970 and 1980) of the Bureau of Census, U.S. Department
of Commerce. The projected per capita waste generation rate for 1980
(an average of 3.91 pounds per person per day) reflects an annual
increase of about 1 percent.
-------
II-2
All of the basic assumptions—waste generation rate, energy
content of waste, population projections and conversion factor to
barrels of oil—and why they were selected will be discussed below.
Available Energy Potential
The estimates of the energy potentially recoverable from the
residential and commercial wastes generated in Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's) were made in the same way as those above,
with one exception. It was assumed that the average person in an
SMSA generates more waste than his rural counterpart. Accordingly,
for 1971 a waste generation rate of 3.60 pounds per person per day
(4.33 in 1980) was applied to the SMSA population of 140.9 million
persons (152.6 million in 1980).
Projected Implementations of Energy Recovery Systems by 1980
This is a projection of energy recovery systems that could be
operating by 1980. Unlike the two preceding categories, however,
this projection was not made as a function of population; nor was
it made solely on the basis of residential and commercial solid
waste. Most of the cities and counties included as Projected Imple-
mentations (Table 3 in the text) are communities that have taken some
definite steps toward implementing an energy recovery system. For
example, a few have already begun construction; several others are
soliciting proposals from builders and system developers; and in
other communities, the legislative body has voted to implement a
-------
II-3
system. Several of the communities on the list have not taken such
definite steps, but they were included because they have an active
planning effort directed towards the energy recovery option.
A brief description of what is taking place in each community
listed in Table 3 is included in Exhibit 1. This information was
supplied by state and local government officials, representatives of
electric utilities and other private companies, and staff of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
It is likely that there will be more energy recovery systems
operating by 1980 than Table 3 indicates. This is because there is
enough time between the present and 1980 to begin and complete the
three to four year implementation process, including planning, design,
construction and shakedown.
Potential Candidates: Areas Hhere Local Conditions Favor
Energy Recovery
The list of Potential Candidates (Table 4 in the text) identifies
those areas (SMSA's) where certain local conditions in 1974 favor
implementation of an energy recovery system by 1980.
As in the first two categories, the energy recoverable from poten-
tial candidate areas is a function of population. Being based on the
entire population of each area, the projections assume that all the
residential and commercial waste generated in each area would be in-
cluded in energy recovery systems. It may happen that these communities
-------
II-4
may chose to put only part—or even none—of their wastes through an
energy recovery system. On the other hand, some communities may recover
energy from other wastes (such as tires, waste oil and wood chips)
that are not included in the residential and commercial waste categories.
Nevertheless, all the residential and commercial wastes (and only
those wastes) were used as the basis for the projections in order to
provide a reasonable "maximum possible" estimate.
The potential candidates were identified using three local
conditions as screening criteria:
1. Markets
2. Economics
3. Public Interest
To be considered a Potential Candidate, an area must have, as a mini-
mum, suitable markets to take advantage of existing technology. As
a second but critical consideration, an area must have certain economic
conditions, such as high disposal costs and high alternative fuel costs.
Thirdly, the public must be interested in energy recovery. In certain
cases, public interest is so keen that public officials have been
encouraged to implement energy recovery even though economic conditions
may not warrant it. These criteria were applied in turn to each of the
243 SMSA's ranked by population by the Bureau of Census. (Exhibit 2).
Markers. SMSA's were first screened to determine if suitable markets
for waste-based energy are available within a reasonable distance.
-------
II-5
The best market approach was assumed to be the use of solid waste as
a supplementary fuel in existing electric utility boilers. Use of
waste as a fuel for heating downtown areas (district heating) and for
industrial boilers is also possible; but data on the location and
capacity of these boilers are too limited to screen SMSA's on the
basis of these markets. Therefore, each area was examined only for
the location of electric utility power plants that are potentially
capable of burning solid waste as a fuel. Any utility boiler that
was designed to burn coal was considered to be potentially capable
of handling solid waste because of its ash handling capability. And
if a coal-burning utility boiler were not located in or near an SMSA,
that SMSA was excluded from consideration.
Certain exceptions were made. The San Diego SMSA has no ash-
handling boilers nearby but was included because it is implementing
an EPA-supported oil pyrolysis demonstration plant; San Diego County
is planning to utilize pyrolysis on a larger scale if the demonstra-
tion is successful. Miami and Jacksonville, Florida, are faced with a
critical shortage of disposal space because of a high water table and
population density; this primarily economic condition is expected to
force these areas to attempt to find markets for waste-based energy
even though no suitable utility boilers are available. San Antonio is
included because its municipally-owned utility is seriously considering
building a new coal-and-waste-burnirig power plant. Eugene, Oregon (in
Lane County) is included because the County is considering retrofitting
-------
II-6
its boilers to supplement decreasing supplies of its primary fuel,
wood wastes.
Economics. The second screening was made on the basis of three econ-
omic criteria:
1. Population size
2. Alternative disposal costs
3. Alternative fuel costs
Energy recovery systems require large quantities of waste (at
least 200 to 250 tons per day) delivered for processing at one site
in order to achieve economies of scale. To generate 200 tons per day,
a population of about 100,000 persons is typically required (assuming
each person generates 3.60 pounds per day and the plant operates five
days a week). All but 26 SMSA's have a population over 100,000.
Alternative disposal costs are frequently the most important
economic factor. The most common influence on disposal costs is the
availability of land nearby. Many communities, especially in the
cities and suburbs, have land that is undeveloped but not available
for disposal because of local resident opposition, high property
values or adverse physical conditions (e.g., high water table). These
communities must seek disposal sites farther away and, consequently,
'There will be exceptions to this somewhat arbitrary minimum size
requirement. Ames, Iowa, (population 40,000) for example, is about
to begin construction on a 200 ton per day energy recovery system.
-------
II-7
bear the additional transportation costs.
Most of the SMSA's listed as potential candidates were found to
be approaching the limit of present disposal site capacity and having
difficulty in obtaining additional capacity. This is a particularly
critical problem in the densely populated Northeast. By comparison,
cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles appear to have found long
term disposal capacity in relatively nearby canyons.
As alternative fuel costs increase, the economics of energy
recovery become more favorable because the value of the waste-based
energy is usually measured by the value of the fuel that it replaces.
High fuel costs, however, have only minor significance in decisions
to implement energy recovery because of the small potential impact on
the economics of the fuel user, especially the electric utility.
Nevertheless, it became apparent that most SMSA's that qualified as
Potential Candidates had higher fuel costs than non-candidates. Again,
this is especially true in the densely populated Northeast, where the
more expensive fuels (low sulfur coal and oil) are required to meet
stricter environmental standards.
Public Interest. Public interest in energy recovery has become an
increasingly important influence on the public decision-making process,
especially as public officials have become more sensitive to environmental
and energy issues. In communities where public officials are considering
energy recovery as an option based on their perception of its economic,
-------
II-8
environmental and political benefits, these public officials appear
to have, as a minimum, the tacit support of their constituents. In
some communities where conditions do not readily favor energy recovery
(for example, sufficient land disposal capacity is, available), the
public's interest in environmental issues is so strong that public
officials are planning to implement (or are now implementing) energy
recovery systems anyway. This strong public support for environemental
issues is evident in several states, including Colorado, Connecticut
and Oregon.
These three screening criteria were applied to each SMSA. In
evaluating each SMSA as a possible Potential Candidate, certain factors
were more important than others. Exhibit 3 indicates the criteria
that determined the judgment about each SMSA.
Waste Generation Rates
The following per capita waste generation rates were used in the
calculations of recoverable energy:
Pounds per person per day
T97TT980
U.S. National Average 3.25 3.91
Urbanized Area Average 3.60 4.33
These rates were based upon the estimated 125 million tons of solid
waste generated in the U.S. in 1971. The types of waste included in
this estimate were described in the text.
-------
II-9
Heating Value of Waste
The higher heating value of 4,500 Btu per pound (9 million Btu
per ton) is generally accepted as the energy value of "as received,"
unprocessed v/aste as delivered by a collection truck to a processing
or disposal facility.
Different waste processing methods have different recovery effi-
ciencies. For example, a shredding/air classification waste process-
ing system loses some potential energy by removing heavy combustibles
from the fuel fraction, while high temperature incineration with no
prior classification would lose far less potential energy. However,
no adjustment was made to allow for such processing losses or energy
conversion efficiencies (of, say, steam to electricity) because no
prejudgment can be made as to which energy recovery method would be
used in any given situation.
Population Projections
Series E Projections, indicating a 9.3 percent increase between
1970 and 1980, were used to project the population of the U.S. in 1980.
The same projections were applied to all SMSA's, although it is likely
that some SMSA's will grow more than others.
Series E Projections are one of the several population projections
made by the Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce based upon
projected birth, death, immigration and emigration rates. Series E
was selected because it is the best approximation of current rates
of birth, death, and so on.
-------
11-10
Barrels of Oil Per Day
Energy data are frequently reduced to a common term of measure-
ment to facilitate comparability. British Thermal Units (Btu's) and
Barrels per Day of Oil Equivalent (B/DOE) are the most common. B/DOE
were calculated based on the following factors:
1 barrel of crude oil = 5.8 million Btu's
1 year = 365 days
-------
11-11
EXHIBIT I
Projected Implementations of Energy Recovery Systems by 1980
Location
California
San Diego County
Tons Per Day
Description
200 Pyrolysi's; U.S. EPA is sponsoring pro-
ject to demonstrate the Garrett Research
and Development system; oil produced
will be accepted by San Diego Gas and
Electric; project in engineering design
phase
Connecticut
Bridgeport
1,200 Solid waste as fuel; State-wide resource
recovery authority is reviewing pro-
posals; Northeast Utilities will accept
the fuel
District of Columbia
1,000 Solid waste as fuel; D.C., Fairfax
County, Arlington County, the City of
Alexandria, and the Council of Govern-
ments are studying the feasibility of
implementing a supplemental fuel system
on a region-wide basis; Virginia Electric
Power Company and Potomac Electric Power
Company are cooperating in the studies
Illinois
Chicago
Chicago area
excluding
City
the
2,000 Solid waste as fuel; construction started
in early March; Commonwealth Edison will
accept the fuel
1,000 Solid waste as fuel; several suburbs have
approached Commonwealth Edison to deter-
mine the feasibility'of implementing
supplemental fuel systems
-------
11-12
Iowa
Ames
200 Solid waste as fuel; construction to
begin by June, 1974; municipal electric
utility will accept the fuel
Maryland
Baltimore
Montgomery County
1,000 Pyrolysis; U.S. EPA is sponsoring pro-
ject to demonstrate the Monsanto system;
pyrolysis gas will be combusted on-site
to generate steam for sale to Baltimore
Gas and Electric; plant will be opera-
tional in early 1975
1,200 Solid waste as fuel; County is planning
project with Potomac Electric Power
Company cooperation; feasibility study
has been completed; County Council and
County Executive have approved the plan
Massachusetts
Braintree
East Bridgewater
(near Brockton)
Saugus
(near Boston)
Lawrence
240 Water wall incineration; plant has been
operating since 1972; Contract signed
early 1974 for sale of steam to Weymouth
Art Leather, Co.
1,200 Solid waste as fuel; Combustion Equip-
ment Associates and others; privately
financed processing facility; Weyer-
hauser is accepting the fuel for their
industrial steam boilers
1,200 Water wall incineration; plant under
construction; steam product will be
sold to General Electric Co. for pro-
cess steam
1,000 Solid waste as fuel; Lawrence will be
the first implementation under the
State-wide solid waste master plan
approved in early 1974; master plan
calls for supplemental fuel production
for steam and steam-electric boilers,
and materials recovery
-------
11-13
Missouri
St. Louis
8,000 Solid waste as fuel; Union Electric
Company plans to implement, by mid-
1977, a system to handle the residential,
commercial and selected industrial waste
from the entire metropolitan area; U.E.
will process raw waste, recover magnetic
metal, aluminum, and glass as well as fuel
for their boilers
New Jersey
Essex County 1,000
(Newark area)
Hackensack 2,000
Meadow!ands
Union County 1,000
(Elizabeth), or
Middlesex County
(New Brunswick)
Solid waste as fuel; Request For Pro-
posals is being prepared; supplemental
fuel to be accepted by Public Services
Gas and Electric or other industrial
steam boilers
Solid waste as fuel; detailed proposals
are currently being reviewed; it is
anticipated that the fuel will be
accepted by Public Services Gas and
Electric or industrial steam boilers
Solid waste as fuel; feasibility of
producing a supplemental fuel for
Public Services Gas and Electric is
being assessed
New York
Albany area
Hempstead
Monroe County
(Rochester)
500 Solid waste as fuel; feasibility of
producing supplemental fuel for indus-
trial steam boilers, state-owne
-------
11-14
New York City
Westchester County
(White Plains)
2,000 Solid waste as fuel; City has completed
feasibility study of using City waste
as supplemental fuel in Commonwealth
Edison's boilers; City writing Request
For Proposals to design and construct
supplemental fuel facility; City and
Commonwealth Edison also plan to init-
iate contract in Spring 1974 to deter-
mine feasibility of designing new
steam-electric boiler to burn 50% solid
waste
1,500 Feasibility study for solid waste
disposal completed; County most inter-
ested in energy recovery for County-
owned industrial park
Ohio
Akron
Cleveland
1,000 Water wall incineration; detailed
engineering study is underway; steam
product will be used for downtown heat
and air conditioning and for B.F. Good-
rich process steam
500 City has requested and received bids
for a steam generation system; the
super-heated steam product will be
used for electric generation by the
municipal utility
Oregon
Lane County
(Eugene)
700 Solid waste as fuel; feasibility study
completed to use waste as supplemental
fuel in a Eugene municipal steam power
plant that currently burns wood waste;
additional waste fuel is required be-
cause wood wastes are becoming scarce
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
2,400 Solid waste as fuel; Combustion Equip-
ment Associates has announced plans to
construct and operate, with private
financing, a facility to produce supple-
mental fuel for industrial steam boilers
-------
11-15
Puerto Rico
San Juan
1,000 San Juan planning to initiate feasi-
bility study for a solid waste as fuel
system; supplemental fuel would be used
by Commonwealth-owned San Juan steam-
electric station
Tennessee
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
500 Pyrolysis; Tennessee Valley Authority
is studying the feasibility of imple-
menting a Torrax gas pyrolysis system
to produce gas as supplemental fuel
for an adjacent TVA steam-electric
boiler
500 Solid waste as fuel; detailed proposals
have been requested to implement a wet
processing system to produce supple-
mental fuel for a Tennessee Valley
Authority steam-electric boiler
750 Water wall incineration; construction
is complete; public authority has been
formed to construct and operate the
facility; steam product will be used
for downtown heating and air condition-
ing
-------
11-16
Exhibit 2
Rank of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States by Population: 1970
Rank
PMUdt-lpMa, Pa.-N.J
Detroit, Mich
San Francisco-Oakland,
ViaSMneton, D.C.-«d.-\a. .
3,109,
2,861,
2,753,
Pittsburgh, Pa,
Baltimore, V.d 2,070
Cleveland, Ohio 2,O64
Houston, Tex 1,985
Kewark, K.J 1,856
2,401,245
2.363,017
670
194
,031
556
Uifliteapolis-St. Paul,
Mjim 1,813,647
Dallas, Tex 1,555,950
Seettle-Everett, Hash 1,421,869
Grove, Calif
Milwaukee, Wis
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.
PaWTson-Clifton-Passaic,
K.J.
S«n Di«go, Calif.
Buffalo, N.Y
il, Fla.
Kanttc City, Ho.-Kans.
Denver, Colo
Ontario, Calif
Indianapolis, Ind
San Jo*e, Calif
Hw OrlwoiE, La.......
Portland, Oreg.-Vash
Rtoenlx, Ariz
Columbus, Ohio
Providenoe-Puwtucke t-
Wanrick, H.I.-Mass
Rochester, N.Y
San Antonio, Tex
Dayton, Ohio,
Uniisville, Ky.-Ind.
Sacramento, Calif...
Fort Worth, lex .........
Birmingham, Ala .........
Albany-Scheoectacly-Troy,
N.y ....................
Tbl<»do, Ohio-Mich .......
Xorfo Ik-Part s»outb^ y*..
Hartford, Conn
Oklaboaa City, Qkla....
Syracuse, H.Y
G«ry-Ha«»ond-Ea6t
Chicago, Ind
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Port louderdale-
Hollywood, Fla..,
1,420,386
1,403,688
1,390,164
1,384,851
1,358,794
1,357,854
1,349,211
1,267,792
1,253,916
1,227,529
1,143,146
1,109,882
1,064,714
1,045,809
1,012,594
1,009,129
967,522
916,228
910,781
882,667
864,014
850,266
826,553
800,592
770,120
762,086
739,274
721,910
692,571
680,600
679,239
663,691
640,889
636,507
633,367
629,176
620,100
Gre«n>boro—Winston-
Salem—High Point, tf.C.
603,B95
Eafiton, Pa.-N.J
QBaH«, Nebr.-Iowa
Grand Rcpids, Mlcb
Youngstown-Harrpn, Ohio.
543,551
541,108
540,142
539,225
536,003
529,922
528,865
Rank
PP
tiT
69
70
71
73
7S
77
7B
79
82
83
86
87
68
89
9U
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
1O4
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
127
128
130
131
133
131
125
13P
137
13fi
1970
SVS* £
>M l>nnn i.n, I* 1 ,-',,J -Md.
...
«ichjt?. Kans
Worcester, Mass
*ilkes-8arre— Hazleton, Pa.
Beaumont -Port Arthur, T&x.
Chattanooga, Tenn . -Ga . . . .
Greenville, S.C
Des Molnes, Iowa
Rockford, 111
Wis
'
Hunting-ton -Ash lend,
CoJujnb.JS, Ga -Ma
Ecrenton, Pa
Lavrence-Haverhi 1 1 ,
Chsrle'ton, W. \a
Kontsv: 1 U>, Ala
SacMis.*. Mich
PC; ' • i
n^,2J!'
4 7 6 , "~, 5
4^*1,003 '
413,053 ;
411 U27
410, 626 j
409,370
369,3-52
378,423
3~6, 690
376,430
362,638
359,291
355,538
344,320
3-42,301
341,979
340,670
329,540
323,296
322,860
319,693
315,943
304,927
303,968
303,849
302,672]
299,502 1
296,382
295,516
290,272
290, 2OS
286,101
285,167
280,455
280,031
273,288
272,063
265,350
264,324
263,654
262,822
253,743
253,460
243,075
238, 5&J
235,972
23-5,107
234,103
232,415
229,515
C2a,4=.3
22S,23y
226,207
219.743
-------
11-17
Rank
1-C '*'
l-l'1
143
14 5
146
147
148
1e Bluff Ark
&*rnan-DeniBOD, Tex
Great Palls Mont . .
Colmbia Mo
Plttsf ield Mace
Daub Conn
1 mil T«
LeviBtOD-Auburn, Maine. . .
NaBhua N B
Midland Tex
Bryan-College Station, Tex.
*
Population
127,621
123,474
121 374
121 068
120 238
120 099
118,238
117 917
117 339
116,189
116,029
115 387
113,959
112 230
109 716
109,378
108 461
108,144
107,219
104,764
104,389
103 047
101,198
97,164
97 096
95,209
94,144
91,805
90,609
89,639
87,367
86 915
85 329
83,225
81,804
80 fill
80 468
79,727
79 486
78 , 405
72 859
72,474
71 047
66 458
65 608
65 433
57,978
55 959
-------
11-18
o
•^
IO
U
Ol
•»->
O
s_
o.
OJ
01
to
JD
£
, 4->
4-> C C
t- >, OJ Ol
u t- E E
IO O) 0> O)
0-> r— •—
IO O O- Q-
o U E E
O> •— i-i
3 ai
o .c
U) •<->
O)
s- en
0) •
01 > in
> o t-
*t*> (.) 0}
4-> Ol 1—
CLU 1-
01 O
u in .0
01 Ol
t. 1- C
c X
tn 10 o •
t- Q. in
10 E S- 4->
Ol O ••- E
a. u O) ai
°- -c E
-O
4-J t-
c a i- E
o > o E
•!-•»- If- O
4J 1. U
IO Q.I—
1. , ai 10
ai s
S- O
<*-
in ~o
10 c
10
O) •—
in E
a.
E
o
c
• i.
^^. O)
01 >
01 O
s- en
•a
t. T3
CD
- o
in s-
3 a.
O 0)
4-> O
(O U
+J O)
E: s-
tu
o. 3
O
*—i o *—< in
O>
IO i —
S- O.
0>
O ->D
i- O
S. i-
4J O_
U
LU
i- (-> 1—
10 ai i—
•O r— LU
c ai _j
10 to
c
01
01
t-
u
to
"-> O
to
u
IO
ai
CD
0) "-
*£
O-
o
-------
11-19
S-
o
c
o
OJ
to
'o
£
S-
O
O t/1
S- C
>> o
O-'f-
O i—
•r- Q.
•— E
0> c:
C CO
•^ s-
S- en
QJ
-D «:
•^- CX.
VI UJ
t/> 1—
c a.
o
E 01
OJ C
•o i-
o
o
10 4->
co c;
OJ
•U O-
01 E
_
~--, 0
*3C QJ
CL. -r-j
UJ O
S-
1- CL.
o
o
S-
Q-
O- O
O V)
i. QJ
a. s-
a-
^a QJ
•o S
CJ -r- CO
o s-
ra M- o
>> to cu
o c:
01
>> E
D.
u
<4-
<
o
t
O
00 •
CfL •-?
>-
z «:
-------
11-20
6
O i—
tt>I—
S- t-
c 10
,
O
Z>
10
ro o
i — (O
O- S-
OJ >,
_l u
OJ
XI
O)
s-
(U
5- XI
O E
S O
01
S- If,
o
C (O
S-
O) <4-
> o
o
Q.TD
••- 0)
(J S-
-<
>, =>
a o
r-.
ro
-------
11-21
u
o>
E
o>
CL
£
u
&
O)
o
i-
O-
(U
•a
o
o
c
ai
g
1
I
z o
«I a:
CQ (—
DC
U
LU
_J
O
(-
o
.*
o
g s
o o i-
>-. o
S g g
• o o
Z U- -C
g fe ^s
^ >
in
ss •
Ul O
I Z
a >-i
cCcC
3: o
I »-H
o: o
s
ID
in
i
. . Ij
•t- I rd ""3 t/> •
•r- 01 r- . C a
•O i— U. z T-
* <0 3 •
(U -U •* « | 40
a: i- -a >- i c
01 o i— o t-
" TJ O 1-1 i. O
=i = s o o a.
•— ro >> J3
D _J <— >- W £
i— r— UJ C Ol
o -MO t/> a; *r-
c s- a: a: QJ 3;
O O LU S-
3: u. -3 o
o
01
5
a: I
-------
11-22
u •
c
o o
c
o
E
0)
T3
C ID
O i.
i- 0)
as
•M
C
i-
u
OJ
i- t/t
^
3 OJ
•O in
i— in
•— E
IB
if)
o
o
+>
2
T3
0)
O
a
• >
ai
O
1-1
i
s.
o
M
c
c •— -
I/) (O
-
et
-3
S.
o
O 3 i-
0) U
t- <0
s-
10
oo
in
o i—
ui vo
OJ
vo
-------
11-23
OJ l/J
•a c
t- O
•4-» C
in aj
o i—
D-
C £
O i-t
111 O
r— i.
O.CI.
(O
M- S_
O Cn
O
(U S-
•(-> O.
00
!_
QJ
i-
10
s:
s:|
(
,2 £ £
«£ O) o
o 3
O O
QT t—I
I
*» -
L. £ 10
•— a;
o
LU
O-
S-
01
o
>-
CO
co
o •—
01 01
-------
11-24
u
5*
O
10 S-
i- Q.
Qi O-
O. (O
O
-a ai
T3 U
aj a>
I
OJ
c
o
T
en
u
o
o
o
01
o
E
p- o
1- O
o z
a
1
ii
a:
o:
ui
cc
3
«t
ce
o
o:
ec
3;
c
IO
o:
CO
en
-------
11-25
o
(O
at
s-
CO
to
*r-
>
s-
a>
>
o
o
cu
S-
cu
o
s-
Z3
0
co
CD
S-
E
•r-
•r—
E
O
E
0
o
cu
t(-
•1—
E
cu
>
cu
"O
QJ
j^
•r—
co
cu
TJ
I
S-
O
03
14-
E
Z5
CU
i_
ro
to
E
O
•r-
•P
•f—
-O
E
O
o
•
r—
03
E
•r-
O)
i-
03
E
S-
o
cu
_Q
03
in
&
s«
cu
E
•i—
O
•r-"
r—
/->
Z5
a.
cu
•P
rO
ZJ
cr
cu
•o
+j
co
OJ
S-
ai
-i-j
E
•i —
O
•f—
1 —
-Q
Q_
r—
ro
E
'i
o
z
cu
co
0
a.
a.
o
to
to
cu
S-
cu
c~
•r—
U}
£;
O
s-
•P
to
•
>,
cu
;>
o
o
cu
£^
cu
u
S-
ZJ
o
co
cu
s-
z: o
CO
X
LiJ
UJ
CD
CO
o
'i
o
E
0
o
LU
co
•P
cu
tO C -P 1
•r- O re O
-E •!- _E i_
CU *P ~P *P O.
O -P 03
i- ^*) rO i- "O to
Z5 ^-* rr* CU E *r-
O O i— -P E rd
•^ to ro T— r~~
E CU S-- E O QJ rO
o s- a> o E > to
E E -r- •!-••- O
o s. ai -P to a.
U O CD ro i— E 10
O) ^ c~ »r» Q} £_
J3 -r- S- ••- 4-> 0
03 -P CU E O M-
S- T- > E CU O
O "O O O3 ^ -P "^O
> E U C C
03 O CU CO O CO 03
u. o s- T~ o -i- r—
U-
to >,
t J._>
ai -i-
O> • r— r—
E O) •!-•!-
•r- I— O J3
*"""™ r^Q ^> fO
^> "O 'O {~^
•P E i — >> 03
•r- 03 -i- -P I_)
i— -C 03 -i-
•i- > •— O> Ol
•P JZ 03 -1- E r—
=j co -P -i- .a
03 O) 3 i— ro
OS- -0 r-
•i- -C ro| O E -f~
S- -P -f- 03 ro
•P *r— >\ i- f~ >
O S -P -P ro
CU -r- O JZ
i — to i — CU tO -P
CU i- •<- i — ro O
CU -Q CU E
• i — ro .E
tO >r- Q. « +J CU
CU O 03 O -r- 4-
>- _Q O 21 5 03
1
riJ
/^
CU E
r- O
X3 -r-
fO -M
r— (13
•f» ,—
fO 3
> 0.
03 O
a.
O M—
E O
>, CU
i— tO
03 rO
.a o
1
-£J
C
rO
1
to
«£
,
C
o
•1—
-l_>
Q.
cu
**?
LU
M
CU
J3 E
-P -i-
4«>
S- •!—
CU to
•P O
fO CL
^ O.
O
C^r—
•^ rtf
^z u
•r—
M +J
>»••-
•P i—
•r- O
tO Q.
E
0) S-
•a o
at
jo
03
^>^~
-P •!—
•f- ro
r— >
••- 03
-P
Zf -P
o
O E
•r~
i- CU
•4-J i-
U fO
CU
i — (/>
QLJ S"
^^
O>r—
c~ «r—
•i — O
r— jQ
•
CU
-*->
•p.
t/>
1—
fO
to
o
a.
V)
•r—
•o
^
cu
E
ro
0
-P
CU
03
l£
to
ro
c~
4-*
3
.Q
•
V>
C
O
•r—
-J— *
•r-
•o
E
O
O
u
»r~
E
O
E
0
o
cu
r—
03
E
CD
S-
03
s:
^~
a>
a>
•
to
4_>
E
CO
E
cu
05
E
03
S-
i-
ro
S- .
CU -P
-E X
-P CU
O +-J
>-
ro
E
to
E
O
•i —
•P
• r-
*%3
E
O
o
<_)
•r-
E
0
E
O
O
CU
cu
-E
CU
0 0
u
cu cu
JO S-
E
o
±J
•r—
"^5
E
o
CJ
o
•r—
E
O
E
O
O
CU
cu
_n
03
O
03
w
$M •P
O> ro
> x:
O -P
o
cu to
S- E
03
cu cu
cj £
S-
Z! tO
O i-
to ^:
CU -P
S-
^^
S- r—
o •—
4- ns
,
^M
ro
to
o
a.
to
"D
i-
o
CD
r— -
fi
rO
•r-
ra
03
cu
4_)
E
•r«
to
s~
0 •
•P cu
O -P
03 03
4- -a
i— ^3
ai E
f— fO
•P O
o
E ro
03 T-
-P E
cu
E O
03 CL.
i- ro
O
O- to
C. 03
""" cj;
cu to
s- s:
O CO
E
to
r— -E
•P -P
E
ro a>
(_) 4-J
•r~ *O
-------
-------
APPENDIX III
NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FROM MATERIAL RECYCLING:
SOME "MAXIMUM POSSIBLE" ESTIMATES FOR FERROUS METAL, ALUMINUM AND GLASS
by Frank A. Smith
INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents estimates on the potential energy savings
from recycling the aluminum, ferrous, and glass fractions of post-
consumer residential and commercial solid waste over the time frame
1972-1990. The basic issue is how much energy could be saved on a
nationwide basis from the recycling of these three waste materials as
substitutes for their virgin material counterparts (i.e., ferrous
waste for virgin pig iron, etc.), under what might be referred to as
the "maximum possible recovery scenario." This is an attempt to set
some practical recycling level within the theoretical quantity limit
of total waste generation, but without pretending to consider political
or economic obstacles as limits to recovery. Results are summarized
for aluminum, ferrous, and glass in Table 1.
ASSUMPTIONS
Without going into great detail, the following basic estimates
and assumptions underlie the derivation of these results.
1. Total "available" post-consumer waste quantities were projected
on the basis of recent EPA estimates of the ferrous, aluminum
and glass fractions of residential and commercial solid waste
streams, and unpublished contract work by Midwest Research
Institute on baseline forecasts. Construction, demolition,
industrial, and other possible waste flow sources of material
recovery were not considered.
2. Percentage of Waste Material processed for recovery was taken
as 100% of the waste generated in Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas. This amounts to roughly 70 to 74% of total
U.S. generation between 1972 and 1974.
3. Recovery process efficiencies were assumed as follows, based
on research by Midwest Research Institute:
Aluminum 65 - 75%
Ferrous 90%
Glass 70%
4. Energy savings per ton of material recycled were taken
as follows, based on an assessment of available literature
and current ongoing contract work, (in 106 Btu/ton of
material recovery):
Aluminum 200
Ferrous 12
Glass 1.3
-------
III-2
CONCLUSIONS
The "maximum possible" energy savings values presented in Table 1
are smaller than many would have guessed, and are in some cases
significantly less than other published estimates (e.g. see the report
of the National Commission on Materials Policy as well as EPA's First
Annual Report to Congress on Resource Recovery). Others have based
their estimates on 100% recovery from a larger estimated waste stream,
and/or have used higher unit energy savings multipliers for certain
materials. There is still much to be learned about this latter question,
but the values used here are believed to be the best and most recent
presently available engineering estimates.
On the other hand, many will consider our assumption of 100 percent
processing of all metropolitan area waste as a very extreme case. And
they would, of course, be correct. The objective was to get a first-
order approximation to the maximum possible recovery as an upper bound
for purposes of discussion and policy input. Later work will be
directed not only at "firming-up" these values, but also at providing
further evaluation of more realistic expectations.
Whether one thinks the 1972 figure of 172 trillion Btu's is a
small or a large number depends on perspective. It is about 0.25%
(one-quarter of one percent) of the nation's primary energy (fossil
fuel plus hydroelectric plus nuclear) consumption for 1972 (approximately
70,000 trillion Btu). At 5.8 million Btu's per barrel of crude oil,
172 trillion Btu's is equivalent to about 30 million barrels of crude
oil. This potential crude oil equivalent would rise to almost 50 million
barrels by 1980 and 70 million barrels by 1990.
-------
III-3
TABLE 1
NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FROM MAXIMUM POSSIBLE
RECYCLING OF ALUMINUM, FERROUS, AND GLASS
FRACTIONS OF POST-CONSUMER SOLID WASTE
[TRILLIONS OF BTU'S]*
Materials** 1972 1975 1980 1985 1990
Aluminum 146-56%] 82 115 164 212 274
Ferrous [63-67%] 81 . 87 95 107 116
Glass [50-52% ] 8 13 15_ 16_ 16_
Total Energy 172 215 274 335 406
*Energy savings are based on "total system" analyses which include
primary energy required for raw material acquisition and electricity
input as well as for principal refining processes.
**Figures in brackets indicate percentages of the individual material
in nation-wide solid waste assumed to be recoverable from a "maximum
possible" recovery effort. Lower percentages are for earlier years,
higher percentages for later years when larger proportions of popula-
is expected to reside in SMSA's and when extraction efficiency expected
to rise. Recovery quantities based on residential and commercial
solid waste only.
P01045
MJ.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1974 582-412/9 1-3
-------
-------
-------
SW 125
SW 125
Energy conservation through Improve
AUTHOR
solid waste management
TITLE
DATE
LOANED
BORROWER'S NAME
DATE
RETURNED
-------
-------
------- |