Canadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition · u • Usually install rudimentary pollution control equipment age M a Usually install rudimentary pollution control equipment ... ‘waste

CanadianCanadianEnergyEnergy--FromFrom--WasteWasteEnergyEnergy FromFrom WasteWaste

CoalitionCoalition

“Current Status of the Canadian Industry”“Current Status of the Canadian Industry”

Presentation to WTERT

Columbia University, New York

17 October 2008

y,

Canadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition

AgendaAgenda

• Language Matters

AgendaAgenda

g g• A Convergence of Needs• Organizational BackgroundW

aste

Organizational Background• Lay of the Land• Setting the Record Straightan

adia

n-F

rom

-Woa

litio

n

• Setting the Record Straight• Progressive Public Attitudes• Evolving Issues Emerging

Ca

Ener

gy-

Co

• Evolving Issues, Emerging Opportunities

Canadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition

Perception Is EverythingPerception Is EverythingPerception Is EverythingPerception Is Everything

• Energy-from-Waste/Waste-to-EnergyEnergy from Waste/Waste to Energy– “Volatile” and “Controversial” evoke unfair imagery– “Proven” and “Reliable” present accurate portrayal

• Name-callingatte

rs

• Name calling– Incinerators

• Only attempt to reduce volume of garbage• Usually install rudimentary pollution control equipmentu

age

Ma

Usually install rudimentary pollution control equipment– EFW

• Employs maximum achievable control technology (MACT)

Lan

gu

• Utilize high temperature to extract energy from trash

Canadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition33

An OutAn Out--OfOf--Date SterotypeDate SterotypeAn OutAn Out OfOf Date SterotypeDate Sterotype


A Modern EFW FacilityA Modern EFW FacilityA Modern EFW FacilityA Modern EFW Facility


StateState--ofof--the Art Technologythe Art Technologygygy


Situational ImperativeSituational ImperativeSituational ImperativeSituational Imperative• Municipalities face an unprecedented waste

management crisis related to capacity shortfall andmanagement crisis related to capacity shortfall and risk of a border closure

• Escalating costs of conventional fossil fuels sparking interest in alternative energy sources

Nee

ds

• Overwhelming scientific evidence validates EFW value proposition

• Strong public opinion polling shows growing supportfor EFWer

gin

g N

for EFW• EFW can enhance supply mix option and address

power supply shortage• Prudent planning dictates investigation of all options

Con

ve

• Prudent planning dictates investigation of all options in an integrated system


Canadian MSW TrendsCanadian MSW TrendsCanadian MSW TrendsCanadian MSW Trends

Year Total Disposal

Annual Change

Total Diversion

Annual Change

Total Generation

Annual Change

Diversion Rate

(kg/capita) (kg/capita) (kg/capita)

7 7 71996 697 176 873 20%

1998 688 -1.31% 222 20.72% 926 5.72% 24%

2000 753 8.63% 199 -11.56% 952 2.73% 21%

2002 769 2 08% 212 6 13% 980 2 86% 22%2002 769 2.08% 212 6.13% 980 2.86% 22%

2004 791 2.78% 246 13.82% 1,037 5.50% 24%

Overall Change 11.88% 28.46% 15.81%(1996-2004)


EFW and RecyclingEFW and RecyclingCountry Diversion

(per cent of total)Landfill

(per cent of total)Incineration

(per cent of total) Waste per capita (kg)Netherlands 65 3 32 624

y gy g

Austria 59 31 10 627Germany 58 20 22 600Belgium 52 13 35 469Sweden* 44 5 50 464Denmark 41 5 54 696Denmark 41 5 54 696

Luxembourg 36 23 41 668Spain 35 59 6 662

Ireland 31 69 0 869Italy 29 62 9 538Italy 29 62 9 538

Finland 28 63 9 455France 28 38 34 567Canada 24 74 2 1,037

UK 18 74 8 600Greece 8 92 0 433Portugal 3 75 22 434

Source: Institute for Public Policy Research, base yr: 2003/4, Environment Canada (2004) * 2005


From: Magnus Schonning, Embassy of Sweden; Carl Lilliehöök, Waste & Recycling, Tekniska Verken AB, Linköping Sweden

Mission StatementMission StatementMission StatementMission Statement

"The Canadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition, an organization of industry associations andorganization of industry, associations, and

stakeholders committed to sustainable environmental policies, stands for the promotion,

adoption and implementation of ER/EFWNee

ds

adoption, and implementation of ER/EFW technology for the management of residual

materials within the context of an integrated solid waste management system Recognizing thater

gin

g N

waste management system. Recognizing that ER/EFW technologies are compatible with

proactive recycling and other diversion efforts, the coalition seeks to promote the merits of the

Con

ve

coalition seeks to promote the merits of the thermal treatment of waste and garner support

for waste derived fuels."


Coalition PrinciplesCoalition PrinciplesCoalition PrinciplesCoalition Principles

• Social Sustainabilityy– Operate within the context of local circumstances,

preserving community sustainability• Environmental Sustainabilitykg

rou

nd

y– Reduce overall environmental burden by

complementing, not competing with, recycling and diversion programson

Bac

k

• Economic Sustainability– Balancing costs and benefits most advantageous and

acceptable to end-users, customers, and host gan

izat

i

communitiesOrg


Organizational MatrixOrganizational MatrixOrganizational MatrixOrganizational Matrix

Municipalities

d d

Emerging TechLabour

Construction Diplomats

Equipment Industry Academia

Engineers

Real Estate

Construction Diplomats

Lawyers Operators

Engineers

y p


Membership MatrixMembership MatrixMembership MatrixMembership Matrix

Peel Region

C t A i ti f

AlterNRGPower Workers UnionEdmontonMetro VancouverHamiltonHamilton Util.

C di Pl ti AE&E V R ll

Vancouver, Peel, Edmonton, Hamilton, Hamilton Utilities AlterNRGPower Workers Union

Willis EnergyMaple Reinders Sweden

Cement Association of Canada WTERT

Golder Associates

Canadian Plastics Industry Association

AE&E VonRoll

FranceSpainGermanyNetherlandsItaly

Cement & Plastics

M l R i d

AE&E VonRoll WTERT

DenmarkSweden, Italy, Netherlands, EarthTechRambollGENIVARGolder Associates, GENIVAR,Willis Energy

Aquilini Renewable E

Maple Reinders Sweden

BordenLadnerGervais Covanta

Golder Associates

WheelabratorVeolia ESWMIWillms & Shier

FranceSpainGermanyNetherlandsItaly

Covanta, Veolia, Wheelabrator/WMI

Maple Reinders DenmarkDenmark, France, Germany,

SpainEarthTechRambollGENIVAR, ,

EarthTech, Willis Energy, Ramboll

Aquilini Renewable E

Borden Ladner Gervais, Willms & Shier Energy Wheelabrator/WMIEnergyWillms & Shier


Category One:Category One:Principal Members, Owners + OperatorsPrincipal Members, Owners + Operators

Covanta Veolia ES Wheelabrator/WMI• Covanta, Veolia ES, Wheelabrator/WMI– Industry leaders assuming rightful place in

an emerging market

and

– Convergence of crisis and opportunity– Recognized multiple large municipalities with

an interest

of t

he

La

– Provincial preference for state-of-the art technology solution

– Essential political role as proactive defenders

Lay

o

p pof model in public forum

– A public policy legacy for future generations


Category Two:Category Two:Entrepreneurs, Associations, InvestorsEntrepreneurs, Associations, Investors

• Key industry associations provided kick start– Cement Association of Canada: Feedstock– Canadian Plastics Industry Association: Recovery rates

• Canada’s leading law firms– Borden Ladner Gervais: Energyan

d

gy– Willms & Shier: Environment

• Promoting diversified, viable, sustainable power generation– Power Workers Union

• Integrating technology into a long-term viewof t

he

La

Integrating technology into a long term view– AlterNRG

• Carving a niche and establishing an early presence– Maple Reinders

• Achieving independent awareness

Lay

o

• Achieving independent awareness– AEE VonRoll

• Driving strategy by understanding the national market– Aquilini Renewable Energy


Category Three:Category Three:Engineers + ConsultantsEngineers + Consultants

• Golder Associates, GENIVAR, EarthTech, Willis Energyan

d , gy– Keeping it real– Managing the hyperboleof

th

e La

Managing the hyperbole– Stay informed, up-to-date– Staying the course in the face of

Lay

o

– Staying the course in the face of public criticism


Category Four: MunicipalitiesCategory Four: MunicipalitiesCategory Four: MunicipalitiesCategory Four: Municipalities

• Metro Vancouver, Peel Region, City of et o a cou e , ee eg o , C ty oEdmonton, City of Hamilton, Hamilton Utilities

St li d i t l tand

– Streamlined environmental assessment– Opening of energy market for LDCs– Attain support on options, withoutof

th

e La

Attain support on options, without compromising decision-making

– Stay informed, connectedA t h l f i ti

Lay

o

– Accept one-way channel of communication– Forcing coalition into role of credible partner


InitiativesInitiativesInitiativesInitiatives• Organizing position

ht

• Recruiting new members• Raising association profile

d St

raig

h

• Building government relationships• Engaging key stakeholders, audiences

D l i i t i i b ite R

ecor

d

• Developing, maintaining website• Pursuing a standard offer program

Ed cating media in national campaignttin

g th

e

• Educating media in national campaign• Participating in technology peer review

Set


A Cold ShowerA Cold ShowerA Cold ShowerA Cold Showerh

td

Stra

igh

e R

ecor

dtt

ing

the

Set


Public OpinionPublic OpinionPublic OpinionPublic Opinion

• Research shows 83% of Canadians support es ppEFW technologies, up from 67% only four years agoC di d t d th t EFW h l

Att

itu

de

• Canadians understand that EFW can help preserve natural resources and reflects a preferred disposal optione

Pu

blic

• Among those who approve of facilities being built, more than half (58%) would also approve construction of such a facility in theirgres

sive

approve construction of such a facility in their immediate communityP

ro


Using ‘Waste to Energy Facility’ Increases Approval 5 points Nationally…+11 Points in Quebec and +10 in BC…From 2004: Up 16 Points…

44%

2008 2006 20042008: 83% 2006: 78% 2004: 67%

44%

39%40%38%

43% % Approve

BC AB SK/MB ON QUE ATL

2008 83% 79% 84% 81% 91% 74%

2006 73% 75% 73% 81% 80% 69%

24%

18%

13%

2004 60% 69% 67% 68% 69% 64%

8% 7%

1%

11%9%

2%

Thinking about this and the other options available, do you approve or disapprove of waste to energy facilities being used for garbage disposal and management in your province? Is that strongly or somewhat? Base: 2004 All respondents N=1,806, 2006 N=2,750, 2008 N=1,652

Strongly approve Somewhat approve Somewhatdisapprove

Strongly disapprove Don't Know

NOTE: In the 2008 wave, ‘waste to energy facility’ replaced ‘incinerator’ in questionnaire.

( h b d)


Source: Waste Management Inc. (Research by IPSOS Reid)

Most Effective Message to Move to “More Likely to Approve” is Burning Waste Saves Natural Resources and a Modern Facility is Less Hazardous to its Neighbors than a Landfill

26% 31% 15%Burning waste produces energy for

h t d i t l

Much more likely to approve Somewhat more likely to approve No impact

Resources and a Modern Facility is Less Hazardous to its Neighbors than a Landfill…

26%

21%

31%

28%

15%

18%

heat and power, saving naturalresources

A modern waste to energy facility isless hazardous to its neighbours, interms of cancer risk, than a modern

landfill

17% 25% 22%Burning waste means less goes tolandfill

16%

16%

23%

20%

20%

21%

Burning waste helps to reducepollutant emissions and preserve

resources

85-90% of waste can be burned

I am now going to read you some things that may be said about waste to energy facilities. Please tell me whether after hearing each statement you are more or less likely to approve of waste to energy facilities being used for garbage disposal and management, or whether the statement has no impact on your opinion? Base: Do not approve/don’t know of incinerators being used for garbage disposal N=278

NOTE: In the 2008 wave, ‘waste to energy facility’ replaced ‘incinerator’ and ‘burning’ replaced ‘incineration’ in questionnaire.



Among those who Approve of EFW Facilities being Built, More than Half (58%) Would also Approve the Construction of such a Facility in their Immediate Community

42%

Approve the Construction of such a Facility in their Immediate Community…

16%

20%21%

1%

Strongly approve Somewhat approve Somewhat disapprove Strongly disapprove Don't know

How would you feel about a waste to energy facility being built in your immediate community? Would you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove? Base: All respondents that said ‘Strongly Approve’ or ‘Somewhat Approve’ at Q15 2008 N=1,375

Source: Waste Management Inc (Research by IPSOS Reid)



A Sustainable SolutionA Sustainable SolutionA Sustainable Solution…A Sustainable Solution…

• Solid public support for proven technologiesSolid public support for proven technologies• Municipalities can manage waste and generate

energy locally, in their own backyard• Potential for distributed generation, district

un

itie

s

heating/cooling• Regional operations offer economies-of-scale

consistent with Smart Growth planning policiesT h i i t d d ith t tO

ppor

tu

• Tough emissions standards with transparent reporting, including on-line and on-site disclosure

• Stringent regulations assure accountability and responsible operationsssu

es &

O

responsible operations• Performance measures to guide improvements and

investments

Is


Communities Considering EFWCommunities Considering EFWCommunities Considering EFWCommunities Considering EFWDurham-York Region (1.1 million)Hamilton (500,000)Peel Region (600,000)

un

itie

s

Sault-Ste. Marie (70,000)Ottawa (1 million)O

ppor

tu

Dufferin County (60,000)Edmonton (1 million)

ssu

es &

Montreal (1.8 million)Metro Vancouver (1.5 million)

Is


John P. FodenExecutive Director

Canadian Energy-From-Waste CoalitionCanadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition10 Rambert Crescent

Toronto, Ontario M6S 1E6Ph (416) 763 0815Phone: (416) 763-0815

E-Mail: [email protected]

www.energyfromwaste.ca


Documents

Canadian Energy-From-Waste Coalition · u • Usually install rudimentary pollution control equipment age M a Usually install rudimentary pollution control equipment ... ‘waste