Best Available Technology
Advanced Thermal Recycling (ATR) is the Best Available Technology (BAT):

Worldwide over 600 EfW facilities are used for generating power in the form of steam and or electricity replacing the dependency of their communities on non-renewable resources.

In the 1980’s significant amount of energy was lost due to inefficient use of "scrubbers", and other methods predominantly used for cleaning the flu gases. Today, with the technological modifications and improvements, especially the technology (Advanced Thermal Recycling or ATR) utilized by Green Conversion Systems (GCS), the net output of energy has improved significantly. The energy equivalent of 1 ton of oil can be derived out of less than 4 tons of waste and the energy equivalent of 1 ton of coal can be derived out of less than 3 tons of coal.

About one quarter of the waste input remains as bottom ash or slag. In the US a common practice is to combine the bottom ash with the boiler and fly ash which is sent to landfill. However, there are significant environmental and economic benefits by not combining the fly/boiler with the bottom ash or slag. Through the technological advances implied by GCS the valuable attributes of bottom ash or slag can be utilized.

For more detailed information please read the following paper:  “Ash Recycling - Just a Dream“

With improved technology EfW facilities not only destroy harmful chemicals but offer a viable alternative to the outdated approach of land filling.

Despite competition between EfW and landfills there is enough evidence that supports the economics, as well as the environmental compatibility of EFW over land filling. The majority of the evidence comes from countries such as Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, Japan, etc. where higher environmental standards mandate the move away from land filling. Out of this necessity these and other countries have studied the impacts of EfW thoroughly.

The EU for example adopts most of its environmental policies from Germany. Over 50% of the EU’s (27 countries) environmental research originates from German research institutions. Germany’s state of the art waste management practices have become the foundation of GCS’s philosophy and activities.

Since 2005, Germany has banned untreated Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in landfills. Politicians recognized that hypothetical and manipulative data is too often used in pro-landfill arguments. Too much data pointed out that public health and safety where at high risk if untreated waste continued to be land filled. On the other hand there is clear evidence that by utilizing proven, state of the art technology such as GCS’s ATR technology this risk would be reduced tremendously. ATR allows for exact measurement of input and, most importantly, the output of substances.

Over the past 20 years, Germany and other leading European countries have been experimenting with so called "alternative technologies" such as Pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc etc.

The continuous performance failure of Pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc technologies etc resulted in Germany favoring mass burn/incineration technology.

Mass burn/incineration technology has proven itself over the past 100 years as the most reliable, economical and environmentally sound method to utilize municipal solid waste in the most sustainable way possible resulting in a cleaner and healthier environment.

To establish a guideline, elaborate testing of land filling, EfW (also referred to as Waste to Energy or WTE), and other methods of municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal were conducted. The results show EfW as the most environmentally sound and economic solution.

As a result of studies like these, Germany has enacted a law, which became effective June 1st 2005, that bans land filling of untreated MSW and instead utilizes EfW and its benefits. The European Union has a similar plan that is supposed to go into effect in 2010.

So why is the United States so far behind Europe? Is it because of misinformed opposition groups that hang onto outdated data from the early days of primitive incineration prior to EPA regulations? Or, is it that we have so much land available that we just find new unpopulated areas and dig new holes? Or, is it simply that we are waiting for the miraculous solution that will cost next to nothing and will magically turn waste into gold?

We have to face the facts and address the problem of MSW in a manner that does not leave it for future generations to deal with! It is our problem and we are responsible for the waste that we create today and also, unfortunately for the waste of past generations.

When studying the best methods for managing MSW and similar wastes it is important to keep in mind that:

1. A community (city, county etc), as a generator of waste, cannot shed or contract away its responsibility for air or water pollution impacts associated with the land filling of solid waste.
2. After reduction and recycling, ATR is the next step in sustainable management of solid waste disposal. Land filling is not the final disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), but is storage for management by future generations.
3. ATR is environmentally superior to land filling. The EPA states that EfW (not even taking into account the advances that ATR offers on top of EfW) is a "clean, reliable, renewable source of energy…these plants produce…electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity".
4. The economics of ATR – revenue from energy and recovered materials – will have a favorable impact on operating costs.
5. ATR is an energy generator --- Land filling is an energy consumer.
6. Long haul (rail) transport of solid waste creates emissions and can tax already over-burdened regional rail systems.
7. Fuel consumed for transportation and burial of waste will only go up and buried waste will continue to burden the environment.
8. ATR destroys the toxic organic contaminants in the waste stream…Land filling does not.
9. ATR operations costs are sustainable for the long term: land filling costs are ever increasing with the amounts added to the landfill i.e. for every ton of waste land filled, more leachate and methane is generated and requires management.
10. Most recyclables have an end-of-life as well. At some point these recyclables become "un-recyclable" and have to be disposed of.
11. Some recycling processes add dangerous chemicals to the environment. Opponents to new generation EfW technology have no viable alternative and are instead continuously burdening the environment and health of us all.

ATR, the next most advanced form of EfW, is the most viable solution – it is the only solution!