During the press conference held by the environmentalists on 16 December 2015 in the press syndicate, we said that the decision No. 1 issued on 1/12/2015 from the Cabinet regarding wastes is a non-environmental decision, and aims to use the incinerators mysteriously. Here we are today, after a series of plans that failed from the government since that date and until this moment, face to face with the incinerators plan, which holds different names just for concealment, such as thermal destruction and the “waste to energy” lie.
According to the “pre-qualification” and “statement of qualifications” documents, it is revealed that the incinerators, which are said to be “from waste-to-energy” centers will receive not only household wastes, but industrial wastes as well.
The amount of energy found in Lebanon’s wastes is very little, and it does not even need any thinking about the choice of incineration to treat it, since “the lower calorific value” for these wastes is not enough to launch and continue the incineration process and to take into consideration the appropriate lower calorific value for the incineration room. This of course, is what the expert “Rambol’s” study states on, and which the CDR refers to in order to prepare the incinerators’ biddings.
The study specifies the calorific Value for Lebanon’s wastes at an average of 7.2 and 7.4 MJ/kg, which in our opinion, is hugely exaggerated, since previous research papers have pointed out to approximately 4 – 5 MJ/kg.
If we overcome this exaggeration, and return to what the consultant says regarding the need to decrease organic wastes from 15 to 20% in order to increase the wastes’ calorific value to 8-9 MJ/kg in order to become suitable for incineration. Why does the consultant say these words? Because he knows that organic wastes constitute around 55% of Lebanon’s wastes, and that they contain 60% water. Every ton of wastes in Lebanon contains 330kg of water, and in order to incinerate these wastes, we need to decrease the amount of water it contains, meaning that we should take off about 10% of the amount of waste Clamminess (the amount of water found in wastes) in order to reach this calorific value. This includes keeping the amount of paper, cardboard, and plastic in the wastes that need to be incinerated, meaning that we should not sort it out in order to recycle it.
This means that we should completely neglect the strategy of recycling and composting organic materials. Al of this, in order to reach the lower calorific value which allows discussing incinerating it, with the help of an additional fuel, according to the consultant. Despite all that, those who put this policy are not embarrassed to call it “from waste to energy”, meaning “retaining energy”.
This of course, is “clear deception”, in which they try to deceive the people who do not know much about it. Simple calculations are enough to inform us about the amount of energy found in wastes, knowing that it is barely enough to evaporate the amount of water it contains. The energy equation for wastes is almost zero. Consequently, we will need a large amount of fuel to provide the launching and continuity of the incineration process, along with reserving the incineration’s room temperature.
That is why, probably the CDR completely ignores introducing the R1 criteria to measure the energy recovery operations in the “pre-qualification” document and the “statement of qualifications” document, and also in the list of criteria which should be present for the bidder. So what is this criterion? And why is it neglected?
It is useful to mention that the CDR uses in the qualifications and competence documents the European Union waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC, and not the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (WfD1), which includes in its second annex a detailed explanation for the R1 criteria regarding the efficiency of energy recovery process, and the equations used to calculate this criterion.
Criteria R1 pinpoints whether the incineration process was an “energy recovery” process or a waste “incineration” process. Only incineration processes that can generate energy with high efficiency could be classified as “recovery” operations. This could be measured using the energy efficiency equation R1 found in annex 2 of the Waste Framework Directive.
This criterion is related to the incineration facilities related to household wastes and the equation related to it is applied, where its energy efficiency is equal or more than 0.65, and it is calculated according to the following equation:
Energy efficiency = (Ep – (Ef + Ei) / (0,97 × (Ew + Ef)
- EP is the amount of energy produced annually (thermal or electric energy), and electric energy is calculated by multiplying the amount of electric energy produced with a factor equal to 2.6, and the produced thermal energy is multiplied by a factor that equals 1.1 (GJ/year).
- -Ef is the amount of energy used annually in the incineration process using fuel to generate vapor (GJ/year) -Ew is the annual energy found in incinerated wastes, and is calculated by the wastes’ calorific value (GJ/year). -Ei is the amount of wastes included in the incineration system except for Ew and Ef (GJ/year). 0.97 is the factor for lost energy due to the bottom ash and the spread of thermal radiation. If the value of this criteria R1 was calculated according to the above equation, and equals or is larger than 0.65, then the incinerator could be considered a facility for “waste to energy”. However, if its value was less than 0.65, the incinerator could not be considered a facility for “waste to energy”, but an incinerator to destroy wastes.
Based on this criterion, and this equation, is the CDR allowed to name a waste incinerator which it is calling for biddings regarding it a “waste recovery facility” or “from waste to energy”? or is this just deception?
It is an incinerator for destroying wastes, and the energy generation issue is just a cover for the passage of the incineration choice, and to deceive people that the matter is about generating energy, along with finding excuses to the taxes that will follow the incinerators, and what will have a high cost of the Lebanese citizen.
The incinerator obliges the presence of a landfill for hazardous wastes, and not normal sanitary landfills. A special landfill for hazardous wastes and ash which is considered as a hazardous waste according to the “Basel” convention for hazardous wastes, including fly ash, which the filters will grab, just as the residual wastes after treating them. The amount of bottom ashes is around 20 – 25% of the whole amount of incinerated wastes.
The incinerator also obliges the presence of a center that treats chemically polluted liquid wastes, which will generate from the wash gases towers. We did not find in the CDR’s 2 documents from what is related to these to facilities, which are highly important especially regarding their effect on the environment and public health. Is this a coincidence or is it previously planned?
Do the Lebanese and their political parties inside and outside the government, and those in the parliament or outside it, know that any weakness or flaw in the operation of the air Pollution control devices, especially regarding the gases resulting from incineration and the material formed during the incineration process, which hold extremely poisonous chemicals, cause cancers and other dangerous diseases?
Do they know that any neglecting of proper treatment for the remaining ash after collecting it from the filters transforms the incinerator into a source of killing for people and polluting the environment? And to a source for real dangers on the Lebanese’ health which are hard to predict? Do the Lebanese deserve to accept this risk? Just to treat their wastes which could be treated in a lower cost and with zero dangers? And with an extremely high economic and social feasibility, if the government adopted the choice of integrated management for wastes and worked on decreasing its quantity and spreading the sorting, and recycling centers, along with using the remaining amount, and adopting sanitary land filling in the areas that are near the sorting centers and compatible with the environmental criteria.
We do not think so of course, since the choice of incinerators is a deceptive deal, added to the previous deals which destroy the environment and the public health, in addition to wasting public money. The choice of incinerators responds to the interests of a group of losers, against the interests of the Lebanese.
Translated from Arabic by Zeina Nasser
