WTE Araucanía and the challenge of modern waste management: a wasted opportunity

On the afternoon of March 17, just last March, regional and communal authorities of the La Araucanía Region finally rejected the WTE (Waste to Energy) project, after more than six years since its initial presentation. This decision, influenced in part by the lobby of environmental organizations—which presumably also influenced indigenous communities and segments of civil society—marks a very negative milestone for the development of modern solutions in waste management.

The original project was presented in an inefficient manner, lacking the clarity and transparency necessary to generate public trust. Subsequently, an attempt was made to correct it "on the way", following an improvised logic that in other times could have worked. But today, with the environment occupying a central place on the public agenda and with organizations with firm positions and the capacity for significant pressure, it is almost impossible to carry out initiatives of this type if they have not been prepared with technical and communicational rigor from all angles. Emblematic cases such as Dominga, WTE Araucanía and Mina Invierno are clear examples of this phenomenon. Here, however, we will focus on Lautaro, Araucanía.

What is most worrying about the rejection of the project is not only the way in which it was presented, but the fact that it does not solve the underlying problem in a modern way: the management of Household Solid Waste (RSD). This perpetuates the use of landfills, widely recognized by scientific literature as the worst alternative available to communities. Landfills are obsolete: they do not offer substantive benefits and generate environmental and social impacts of great magnitude; they are solutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.

It is sadly striking that the authorities of Lautaro – and possibly the entire region – are considering the separation of waste at source for composting and recycling as an alternative. While these practices are valuable and necessary, they alone are not sufficient to address the structural problem. This approach implies that for non-compostable and non-recyclable waste, the only viable solution is to return to landfills. Are we thinking about reopening Boyeco, which already operates as a kind of unsupervised environmental Frankenstein? This site, closed due to saturation, continues to emit methane without control and has contaminated thousands of hectares of underground layers. Or is it intended to build new landfills? Who would agree to have one near their home, with the problems of odors, vectors, noise and pollution that they entail?

But the most serious thing about a landfill is not what is visible: the worst is its emissions.

I firmly believe in the circular economy and the goal of zero waste. However, it is one thing to want it and quite another to implement it with current technologies. Meanwhile, it is essential to have innovative systems that adequately manage non-recyclable and non-compostable fractions. Otherwise, we will continue using obsolete and highly polluting solutions such as landfills. Comparatively, even incineration represents a cleaner alternative: according to studies, landfills can generate up to 30% more methane emissions than incineration. And although methane has a shorter life in the atmosphere than CO₂, Methane traps more heat per molecule, making it 80 times more harmful than CO2 during the first 20 years after its emission.  (Eduljee 1995)

Sending one ton of RSD to a landfill without gas capture is equivalent to 4.8 tons of CO₂, in contrast to the 0.8 tons that are generated through incineration. This implies a difference of up to six times in terms of environmental impact (Hester & Harrison, 1995).

Currently, there are technologies capable of destroying practically any waste—with the exception of inert materials such as metals, glass or concrete—with almost zero emissions. Plants like Marchwood Energy Facility (Southampton, United Kingdom), Copenhill (Copenhagen, Denmark) and, in general, Sweden's national waste incineration and management strategy, demonstrate that it is possible to combine energy efficiency with environmental sustainability.

Even more, more advanced systems than traditional incineration are now available, such as Flash Thermolysis: a technology with practically zero emissions, extremely efficient, which also allows the recovery of gray water and the intelligent use of space (a plant of just 800 m² can process up to 100 tons of waste per day), with emissions measurements prewash of tetrachloride, dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans of around 0.000026 ng/Nm3 And if that were not enough with zero accumulation of waste, zero odors and no annoying noises.

The current view of waste management in Lautaro is, unfortunately, unrealistic, naive and potentially harmful to the environment. Part of the mistake lies in assuming that everything is recyclable or compostable. According to data from 2017, Lautaro generates about 22 tons of waste per day, of which approximately 70% is organic and the rest corresponds to plastics, papers, metals, glass and other materials.

There are two certainties in the world of waste:

1. Not everything is recyclable.

2. There are only four real ways to manage waste.

   
   

Recycling has obvious limitations. An example is PET1, a plastic highly promoted as recyclable. Although it can be recycled, it is not possible to do so infinitely or for the same uses for which it was originally manufactured: after a few “rounds” or recycling processes, it is no longer suitable for food contact (after the first round) and ends up being transformed into low-demand objects such as plastic furniture or toilet plugs. Let's continue with the PET1 water bottle – according to the bottlers – the number of turns is between 6 and 10 times, after the tenth time, the obvious question is: And what happens in the “11th turn”? Where is this material going? To our brave Pacific Ocean?

Added to this is the problem of the previous content of the container: recycling a water bottle is not the same as one that contained pesticides, oil, or medical waste. From manual inspection to automated processes, material contamination drastically affects its recyclability.

The four ways to dispose of garbage (although strictly speaking there are three, and one should not be counted) are:

1. Illegal: Throwing waste into the sea or clandestine landfills.

2. Sanitary landfill: The worst alternative by far.

3. Incineration: Efficient, clean, generates energy and reduces volume.

4. Flash Thermolysis: Almost no emissions, high energy performance, minimal impact.

   
   

We are still far from achieving a completely circular and waste-free economy. This will take decades or centuries and will require new materials, robust policies and technologies not yet available. Meanwhile, we continue to accumulate untreatable waste in landfills, perpetuating what has been called “sacrifice zones.” It is alarming to think that some municipalities, regions and environmental groups are willing not only to maintain these zones, but even to expand them due to the lack of realistic alternatives.

 The recycling industry, today, cannot cope. Much recyclable waste ends up in landfills due to lack of infrastructure, capacity or markets. The same happens with composting: if organic waste arrives contaminated with antibiotics, for example, they destroy the bacterial flora of the compost. Furthermore, the amount of compost generated many times exceeds local demand, generating new logistical problems.

Neither incineration nor Flash Thermolysis compete with recycling or composting: they complement each other. Especially Thermolysis, which can take care of non-recyclable or compostable waste and also supply energy to recycling and composting plants.

References:

• Crowley et al. (2003). Health and Environmental Effects of Landfilling and Incineration of Waste - A Literature Review.

• Denison, R. (2002). Environmental life-cycle comparisons of recycling, landfilling, and incineration.

• Olofsson, M., Sundberg, J. & Sahlin, J. (2005). Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view.

• Eduljee, G. (1995). Incineration and landfill: a comparison of emissions.

• Hester & Harrison (1995). Environmental and Health Impact of Solid Waste Disposal.