6. Actual Economy/Environment Choices Less Cost / widget More Less Pollution/widget More Cost Up Pollution Up No Interest Cost down Pollution up Disrupts environment Cost up Pollution down Disrupts Economy Cost Down Pollution Down Win-Win
21. work very much like coal-fired power plants. The difference is the fuel. Waste-to-energy plants use garbage—not coal—to fire an industrial boiler. The same steps are used to make electricity in a waste-to-energy plant as in a coal-fired power plant: 1. The fuel is burned, releasing heat. 2. The heat turns water into steam. 3. The high-pressure steam turns the blades of a turbine generator to produce electricity. 4. A utility company sends the electricity along power lines to homes, schools, and businesses.
22.
23. can think of garbage as a mixture of energy-rich fuels In 100 pounds of typical garbage, more than 80 pounds can be burned as fuel to generate electricity at a power plant. Those fuels include paper, plastics, and yard waste A ton of garbage generates about 525 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity energy to heat a typical office building for one day.
28. FUEL FUEL WASTE ELECTRICITY 33% 67% ELECTRICITY STEAM WASTE 30% 45% 25% What is Combined Heat and Power?
29. Combined Heat and Power Waste Heat Recovery CHP Plant 33 units Waste Energy End User Site Fuel 100 units Pollution = 66 units Useful Work 33 units Electricity 33 units Thermal Energy
30. Industrial Energy Options Electricity Steam Hot Water End User Site Finished Goods Waste Energy Energy Recycling Plant Saved Energy Input Electricity Process Fuel
The public thinks economy and environment are immutable tradeoffs. This simple, but widely held view is that any improvement in the environment will result in higher costs.
There are twin goals for new energy production -- lowering pollution and reducing costs. This map illustrates the four possibilities. The center vertical axis is the cost per widget of production today, while the horizontal axis is the pollution per widget today. The four boxes are the directional possibilities. No one talks about solutions in the upper right hand box, i.e. solutions that would add cost and pollution. Most of those in the debate assume that the potential actions lie in one of the two boxes in red. Those who believe the power system is optimal today assume that any changes to reduce pollution will increase the costs of power. Media fascination with unproven technologies like fuel cells and micro turbines and political fascination with renewable technologies like photovoltaic and wind reinforce the notion that reducing pollution will increase costs. Those with an environmental focus assume that there would be even more pollution except for the rules, and that granting the power industry more freedom will result in lower costs from the deployment and use of dirtier technology. Both of these views are wrong. The bottom left box is obviously the target, where pollution and costs are down from new technology and new approaches to generating power.
