1 of 18

WASTE TO ENERGY WEBINAR��Metro Vancouver Case Study

April 3, 2024

A just world, of vibrant, resilient, regenerative Zero Waste communities, in harmony with nature…

2 of 18

Zero Waste

The conservation of all resources by means of responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of products, packaging, and materials without burning and with no discharges to land, water, or air that threaten the environment or human health.

2018, Zero Waste International Alliance

www.zerowastebc.ca

3 of 18

Context

  • 1988 Burnaby Incinerator built
  • 2010 Solid Waste plan includes both zero waste and a new incinerator
  • MV pushes incinerator
  • Work to prevent new incineration by broad group of actors
  • 2015 Metro Vancouver stops pursuing new incinerator
  • Actions on zero waste: organics, improved recycling, reduction campaigns
  • 2024 Metro Vancouver working on next solid waste plan

Context

4 of 18

What is working

  • Disposal decreased by 216 kg/person
  • Generation per capita decreased by 112 kg/person since 2010

Results –Waste Disposed

5 of 18

Costs -2020

Note: operating costs for landfill include capital costs, capital costs for LF are for maintaining closed Coquitlam site

Costs for WTE do not include the $2.5 M spent trying to pursue new WTE

Costs

Incinerator

Landfills

​

Zero Waste

-Not wasting

Operating Costs /t (2020)

$96.64

$47.97 (inc. capital)

$6.84

Proportion of Waste

1/5

4/5

Negative

Capital (2010-2027)

$244M (and increasing)

Included in above

0

Tonnes

244,362

987,163

597,896 avoided

Savings as waste not created

​

​

$54 M if incinerated

$25 M if landfilled

6 of 18

Costs over time

Landfill operating costs up 4% (2010-20)       (10% by 2027)

WTE operating costs up 22%                            (74% by 2027)

7 of 18

Energy Out

Incinerator sold 544,558 GJ of energy (2020)

Vancouver Landfill sold 350,280 GJ (lower than in past)

Vancouver Landfill flared (did not sell) 920,123 GJ

This is more than the unsold steam energy from the incinerator (624,000 GJ in 2011 when Norampac last ran)

8 of 18

GHG Emissions by disposal

  • Declining from LF as decreasing organics and better landfill gas capture -75% less than 2010
  • Increasing for incinerator as requiring more input energy to run -101% more than 2010 and less efficient

GHGs - 2020

Incinerator

Vancouver Landfill

External Landfill

Waste prevented

Non-biogenic GHG (tCO2e/t waste)

0.58

0.26

0.08

negative

Including biogenic GHG (tCO2e/t waste)

1.28

0.32

0.14

negative

Percentage of GHGs (total)

64%

36%

<1%

negative

Percentage of waste

20%

54%

3%

-33%

9 of 18

What about electricity generation?

kg CO2e / GJ electricity

3

50

222

262

784

Alberta -measured when it used Coal

Metro Vancouver WTE

(non-biogenic)

Metro Vancouver WTE

(total)

BC -Hydroelectric

Natural gas

 the Burnaby Incinerator has been in the top 25 biggest GHG industrial point sources in BC for past 10 yrs

​

10 of 18

Time to retire

​

  • Study shows US incinerators closing
    • Costs to maintain, replacement parts
    • Keeping up with evolving health and environmental standards
  • Life expectancy 30 years, Burnaby WTE is 35 years old (1988)
  • Oregon continuous monitoring –dioxin/furans, SO2,NOx, toxic metals
  • Costs rapidly escalating
  • Covanta contract expires in 2025
  • BC Hydro power purchase agreement expiring

​

11 of 18

What is in the waste?

Material

Energy (GJ/t)

Plastics

36.8

Paper

16.5

Organics

8.9

Metals

0.7

Glass

0.2

Metro Vancouver 2022 waste composition study

12 of 18

How is that waste still there?

+ Estimated 103,600 t of Extended Producer Responsibility program materials still going to waste

​

13 of 18

Benefits from incinerator closure

All future capital costs – shut down costs – transfer station costs + use of land

Operating costs (note contract ends 2025)

Staff time to report on emissions + monitoring costs

No need to try to find places for ash to go

Decreased health and environmental risks

Meet new standards

GHG savings

Air quality benefits

Opportunity costs

14 of 18

Conclusion

  • Actions on Zero Waste work
  • Focus on incineration impedes progress + competes for resources

15 of 18

Recommendations

  • Adopt ZW definition and hierarchy
  • Shut down WTE
  • Use savings to work on ZW –especially rethink, reuse, reduce
    • 3Rs Study, Conference findings, NZWC work
  • Collaboration & partnerships
  • Enforcement
  • Use existing LF while waste is decreased and manage methane well

16 of 18

Report: https://www.zerowastebc.ca/about-us/our-work/#Research

17 of 18

District Energy

  • Cost rising- from $55M to over $75M
  • More people will be living closer to the incinerator (River District 6 km)
  • Risk of relying on waste incineration
  • District energy should only be based on renewable clean energy sources
  • Can reduce GHGs more by closing WTE

​

18 of 18

Energy added

Energy needs to be added in the form of electricity and gas to make the incinerator work well. That amount of energy has increased by 54%.  

It took over 144,000 GJ in 2020  -enough to power 2600 houses