Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.

Language:

Download

Go BackAdd Note

Link

Embed

Save for later

Joshua Ridenour – SHINE, SCPage 1 of 20Waste Incineration - CON

WASTE INCINERATION – CON

INHERENCY .....................................................................................................................2

1. Federal Guidelines on MSW are already solving..............................................................................22. Federal government already supporting Waste to Energy.................................................................2

SOLVENCY .......................................................................................................................2

1. There are many types of incinerators; Aff doesn't know which we'll use...........................................32. 50 more incinerators would not burn a significant amount of our waste.........................................33. Incinerators can only burn 273,000 tons a year (Note: 750 x 365 = 273,750).................................3

DA #1 – Public Health .......................................................................................................4

Link: Aff increases Incinerators.............................................................................................................4 Impact: Incinerators increase the likelihood of all types of cancers.....................................................4 Impact: Incinerators release dangerous dioxins and furans..................................................................4 Impact: Incinerators release a wide variety of emissions, causing a wide range of problems..............5 Impact: Incinerators release emissions in urban areas; accidents would be dangerous......................5

EXTENSION..................................................................................................................6

1. Air emissions aren’t the problem, toxic waste disposal is..................................................................6 2. Inhalation of emissions are only 2% of the problem..........................................................................6

DA #2 – Voter Disenfranchisement #1 ............................................................................7

Link: Public support is vital to success..................................................................................................7 Uniqueness: Anti-incineration groups cast doubt upon incineration, and plan does not have public support....................................................................................................................................................7 Uniqueness: Public opinion expresses anti-recycling mindset behind incineration..............................8

DA #3 – Voter Disenfranchisement #2 .............................................................................9

Link: Public support is vital ..................................................................................................................9Uniqueness: Anti-incineration groups cast doubt upon incineration, and plan does not have public support....................................................................................................................................................9Uniqueness: Emission uncertainty fuels public opposition....................................................................9Uniqueness: Public opinion does not support incineration.................................................................10Uniqueness: Incineration has a poor public image.............................................................................10

DA #4 – Increased Government expenditure ................................................................12

Link: Aff builds 50 incinerators............................................................................................................12Uniqueness: Each incinerator would require constant study..............................................................12 Impact: Maintaining fiscal discipline key to recovery of the US economy .........................................12

DA #5 – Power Loss .........................................................................................................14

Link: Aff builds more waste-to-energy plants......................................................................................14 Impact: Unreliable power creates energy losses.................................................................................14

DA #6 – Recycling Hurt .................................................................................................. 15

Link: Waste-to-Energy Incineration takes away from recycling programs.........................................15 Link: Incineration programs discourage already slowing recycling...................................................15 Link: Incineration discourages recycling programs............................................................................16 Impact: Waste that is incinerated can’t be recycled; we’re using up too much as it is.......................16 Impact: Recycling is the better option..................................................................................................17 Impact: Recycling avoids greenhouse gas emissions from incineration..............................................17

DA #7 – Important source of energy lost .......................................................................19

Link: Landfills provide necessary energy.............................................................................................19 Link: LFG fuels city vehicles................................................................................................................19Uniqueness: Landfill-to-gas programs are spreading throughout the country...................................19 Impact: Important source of energy lost..............................................................................................20

Joshua Ridenour – SHINE, SCPage 2 of 20Waste Incineration - CON

INHERENCY

1. Federal Guidelines on MSW are already solving

[Note: MSW = Municipal Solid Waste; RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]

Brian Glover(Writer, EESI) and Justin Mattingly(Writer, EESI) “Reconsidering Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable Energy Stock” July 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE http://www.eesi.org/files/eesi_msw_issuebrief_072109.pdf

Passed in 1976, RCRA (P.L. 94-580) created a role for the federal government inregulating solid waste pollution. The act requires states to implement a solid wastemanagement strategy. The EPA was tasked with developing guidelines that states couldfollow in designing a strategy. These guidelines include an emphasis on source reductionand recycling of MSW as the preferred options. Ultimately, state regulations are subjectto EPA review to ensure that federal requirements will be met. In addition, RCRAincluded a ban on open dumps for MSW. As a result of this and the economies of scalerequired to meet stricter landfill requirements, the number of landfills has declined from8000 in 1988 to 1654 in 2008, while capacity has remained level.43 A number of RCRAmeasures were strengthened with the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments,which closed several loopholes in landfill and hazardous waste treatment standards andstrengthened the power of the EPA to enforce them.44

2. Federal government already supporting Waste to Energy

[Note: EIA = Energy Information Administration]

According to the EIA, waste-to-energy facilities receive less federal support thanvirtually any major source of electricity, including coal.46 Currently, electricitygenerated by new facilities will benefit from a production tax credit of 1 cent per kWh asauthorized under section 1101 of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009(P.L. 111-5).47 This credit will last for 10 years from the date the plant is put in servicefor those facilities built after August 8, 2005 and for five years for those put in service between October 22, 2004 and August 8, 2005.48 The credit does not apply to facilities built before October 2004. While this incentive is undoubtedly valuable, most other renewables receive 2.1 cents per kWh.

SOLVENCY

Joshua Ridenour – SHINE, SCPage 3 of 20Waste Incineration - CON

1. There are many types of incinerators; Aff doesn't know which we'll use

Dr. Andrew Knox(PhD, Engineering, University of Toronto; Renewables and the Environment, Toronto, Canada Area; Technical and Development Office, Decon Association for Renewable Energy) “An Overview of Incineration and EFW Technologyas Applied to the Management of Municipal Solid Waste(MSW)” February 2005ONTARIO ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf

There are many types of mass burn incinerators, each of which can be made far lessharmful today then they could have been made as recently as the late 1980s.Water-Wall IncinerationControlled Air Modular FurnacesLiquid Injection IncinerationRotary KilnsMultiple Hearth IncineratorsFluidized Bed IncineratorsGasificationPyrolysisPlasma ConvertersAnaerobic Digestion

2. 50 more incinerators would not burn a significant amount of our waste

Richard Andreson(Product Marketing Manager, Chemical Oil and Gas Industry,Gensym Corporation; BS, Chemical Engineering, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; ) “Incinerators” 2002 THE ENVIRONMENT (Accessed via Academic OneFile)

In the United States, 109 large waste-to-energy incinerators burn about 14 percent of our solid waste. Some of these facilities have multiple units. There are 160 units in all thatcontinuously burn from 200 to 750 tons of waste per day. These facilities convert the heatto electricity, enough to power 1.5 million American homes. There are roughly 75 other smaller municipal waste incinerators. Most are in regions where the water table is toohigh to allow for landfills. Florida, for example, has more of these facilities than anyother state. Others are in places like Alaska, where cruise ships dock and by law have tosend their waste to incinerators. Many of the smaller facilities operate only sporadically.

3. Incinerators can only burn 273,000 tons a year (Note: 750 x 365 = 273,750)