- Email: [email protected]
Secondary materials in domestic refuse as energy sources
Resource Recouery and Conservation, 3 (1979) 401-402 o Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed
in The Netherlands
Book review _ _.______
II-
_-II_
__~
401
Secondary Materials in Domestic Refuse as Energy Sources. A report prepared for the Environment and Consumer Protection Service of the Commission of the European Communities by Europool; Graham & Trotman Limited, London, 1977, iii + 72 pages.
Materials Flows in the Post Consumer Waste Stream of the EEC. A report prepared for the Directorate-General for Industrial and Technological Affairs and for the Environment and Consumer Protection Service of the Commission of the European Communities, by Henry-Claude Bailly and Charles Tayart de Borms of the Centre de Planification des Ressources, Graham & Trotman Limited, London, 1977, ix + 96 pages. Practitioners planning energy and materials recovery systems for the European Economic Community (EEC) (Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, France, West Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) will find useful data in these two recently published soft cover books. The primary value of the first is to attempt to correlate the quantity of waste to the population of a community. A 1971 study in West Germany confirmed earlier work in that country of the relationship between the size of community and the per capita incidence of waste. For example, in a community of less than 2000 inhabitants the amount of waste generated per head is 100 kg. In a city of more than l,OOO,OOO, the amount is 260 kg per head per year. They concluded that, providing certain conditions are met, a remarkable degree of consistency is found in the figures irrespective of the country concerned. Useful information on composition and calorific values of the waste is presented. They envision the calorific value of waste in cities reaching 8.4 MJ/ kg in the next few years. They sum up with the observation that both the quantity and calorific value are at their lowest in rural areas and highest in large cities. The balance of the report is generally an extrapolation of these numbers into “what if” all the waste were converted into energy and a superficial consideration of the available technology and costs. Although one gets a sense of deja vu, in that the work is generally reminiscent of early U.S. EPA studies which converted nation estimates of waste into both dollars and equivalent barrels of oil, it will be a handy reference source for planners. The report’s value would have been enhanced if the authors had stressed the quantity and quality and furnished a deeper analysis with more actual data. A better organized presentation with a more logical sequence would also aid the reader. The second book is a macroanalysis using input/output techniques to deter-
402
mine the quantities of six materials in the EEC waste stream. The potential economic and energy values of paper, ferrous, aluminum, glass, textiles and rubber tires were determined. In addition, the solid waste management practices of each country and how they may affect material and/ or energy recovery were assessed. The primary value of these books will be to policymakers within the EEC who can use the data to’assist them in formulating their Community Resource Recovery Policy. The work can be useful to U.S. planners to provide a comparison of data. It is no surprise that the report concludes: (1) There is a need for change in disposal practices, i.e. no open dumps. (2) The timing is now for an integrated European disposal policy. (3) Regional collaboration is a key factor for project viability. (4) Everybody is considering resource recovery. Of special interest is a one-page summary of solid waste management data for each country. These data are presented in the same format to facilitate comparison. References are included. DONALD
L. MIHELICH
Williams Brothers Urban Ore., Inc. Tulsa, OK 74136, U.S.A.
in The Netherlands
Book review _ _.______
II-
_-II_
__~
401
Secondary Materials in Domestic Refuse as Energy Sources. A report prepared for the Environment and Consumer Protection Service of the Commission of the European Communities by Europool; Graham & Trotman Limited, London, 1977, iii + 72 pages.
Materials Flows in the Post Consumer Waste Stream of the EEC. A report prepared for the Directorate-General for Industrial and Technological Affairs and for the Environment and Consumer Protection Service of the Commission of the European Communities, by Henry-Claude Bailly and Charles Tayart de Borms of the Centre de Planification des Ressources, Graham & Trotman Limited, London, 1977, ix + 96 pages. Practitioners planning energy and materials recovery systems for the European Economic Community (EEC) (Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, France, West Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) will find useful data in these two recently published soft cover books. The primary value of the first is to attempt to correlate the quantity of waste to the population of a community. A 1971 study in West Germany confirmed earlier work in that country of the relationship between the size of community and the per capita incidence of waste. For example, in a community of less than 2000 inhabitants the amount of waste generated per head is 100 kg. In a city of more than l,OOO,OOO, the amount is 260 kg per head per year. They concluded that, providing certain conditions are met, a remarkable degree of consistency is found in the figures irrespective of the country concerned. Useful information on composition and calorific values of the waste is presented. They envision the calorific value of waste in cities reaching 8.4 MJ/ kg in the next few years. They sum up with the observation that both the quantity and calorific value are at their lowest in rural areas and highest in large cities. The balance of the report is generally an extrapolation of these numbers into “what if” all the waste were converted into energy and a superficial consideration of the available technology and costs. Although one gets a sense of deja vu, in that the work is generally reminiscent of early U.S. EPA studies which converted nation estimates of waste into both dollars and equivalent barrels of oil, it will be a handy reference source for planners. The report’s value would have been enhanced if the authors had stressed the quantity and quality and furnished a deeper analysis with more actual data. A better organized presentation with a more logical sequence would also aid the reader. The second book is a macroanalysis using input/output techniques to deter-
402
mine the quantities of six materials in the EEC waste stream. The potential economic and energy values of paper, ferrous, aluminum, glass, textiles and rubber tires were determined. In addition, the solid waste management practices of each country and how they may affect material and/ or energy recovery were assessed. The primary value of these books will be to policymakers within the EEC who can use the data to’assist them in formulating their Community Resource Recovery Policy. The work can be useful to U.S. planners to provide a comparison of data. It is no surprise that the report concludes: (1) There is a need for change in disposal practices, i.e. no open dumps. (2) The timing is now for an integrated European disposal policy. (3) Regional collaboration is a key factor for project viability. (4) Everybody is considering resource recovery. Of special interest is a one-page summary of solid waste management data for each country. These data are presented in the same format to facilitate comparison. References are included. DONALD
L. MIHELICH
Williams Brothers Urban Ore., Inc. Tulsa, OK 74136, U.S.A.