Is setting your trash on fire a good idea?

The U. S. generates 292 million tons https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials of trash each year – and that trash has to go somewhere. Sometimes, that’s to an incinerator, where it’s burned and turned into electricity. Proponents of incineration applaud the ability to generate energy from waste and divert garbage from landfills. Opponents worry about the potential health risks, especially to minoritized communities. Today on the show, we explore the good and the bad of waste-to-energy facilities – and even get to see one up close. Interested in more deep dives into the often invisible science powering our lives? Email us your question at [email protected] mailto:[email protected]. Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. It includes perks like bonus episodes, early access, archive access, curated playlists and sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org http://plus.npr.org. See pcm.adswizz.com https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences. NPR Privacy Policy https://www.npr.org/about-npr/179878450/privacy-policy

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  This message comes from Capella University. That spark you feel? That's your drive for more. Capella University's FlexPath learning format lets you earn your degree at your pace without putting life on pause. Learn more at capella.edu. You're listening to Short Wave from NPR.

• 0:20Emily Kwong?

  Hey, Short Wavers. Emily Kwong here with Angela Zhang, a reporter who's been on our team for the last few months through the Stanford Health Equity Media Fellowship. Hey, Angela.

• 0:28Speaker 02

  Hey, Emily.

• 0:29Emily Kwong?

  Hey.

• 0:30Speaker 02

  So lately, I've been biking to work, and I'm getting stuck behind the trash truck that comes down my street. And I'm trying to dodge a smell, which is a fun time. But I've also been wondering, where does all of this trash even go?

• 0:41Emily Kwong?

  I assume it goes to a landfill, right?

• 0:43Speaker 02

  Well, that's what I thought at first, too. But in some places around the country, a portion of our trash goes to an incinerator.

• 0:49Emily Kwong?

  Wait, so our trash is getting burned?

• 0:52Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's getting burned. About 12% of the trash we generate in the United States gets sent to these plants, called waste-to-energy facilities. They convert the energy they get from burning the trash into actual electricity that we can use on our grid, which is kind of wild to me.

• 1:07Emily Kwong?

  And the conversion of this waste to energy, is this a new technology?

• 1:11Speaker 02

  Not really. So people have been burning trash for a long time, like New York City had trash incinerators way back in the 1800s.

• 1:19Speaker 03

  And I remember this when I was a kid. You would take your garbage and throw it down a chute that was next to the elevator shaft, and that was literally just burning it.

• 1:27Speaker 02

  So that's Marco Costaldi. He's a professor of chemical engineering at the City College of New York. So burning the trash, not new. But using the burning process as a deliberate source of energy, that's newer, since the 1960s.

• 1:40Emily Kwong?

  Hmm. And to be clear, we no longer have incinerators in residential buildings.

• 1:43Speaker 02

  Correct. Yes, you're not carrying your trash to the incinerator in your building.

• 1:48Emily Kwong?

  At least last time I lived in New York. This is not a thing.

• 1:50Speaker 02

  Yes. Still, Emily, not everyone's a fan of waste-to-energy. There's actually this big counter movement of advocates that have successfully shut down plants all over the country. I talked to Jessica Roth, who's part of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, or GAIA.

• 2:06Speaker 04

  Waste-to-energy, quote unquote, is the most expensive and the dirtiest way of generating energy that we have. It's incredibly inefficient. They keep saying that this is an important piece of the puzzle, and in fact, it's barely makes a blip on the radar.

• 2:22Emily Kwong?

  Today on the show, we dig deeper into the story of where our trash goes. How does an incinerator work? And is the story as clean as it looks? You're listening to Short Wave, the science podcast from NPR.

• 2:40Speaker 05

  Stay tuned for the following announcements and messages from our sponsors.

• 2:44Speaker 00

  This message comes from Edward Jones. Where they believe rich isn't about having life all figured out. It's opening yourself to all the possibilities. That's why your dedicated financial advisor provides long-term planning built around you, meeting you where you are and helping you get closer to where you want to be. So no matter where you're starting from or wherever life takes you, you can move forward with confidence. The key to being rich is knowing what counts. Let's find your rich together. Edward Jones. Member SIPC.

• 3:18Speaker 05

  This message comes from NetSuite. AI isn't just opening new business opportunities. It's changing the way businesses get work done. That's the idea behind NetSuite Next, the next generation of NetSuite, with AI woven into the tools your business already relies on. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get the free business guide, Aligning for the Agentic Era: How AI is Changing Everyday Work, at netsuite.com/shortwave.

• 3:44Speaker 00

  This message comes from EasyCater. Making it easy for organizations to order food for meetings and events from favorite restaurants, set up meal programs for their employees, and manage food spend all in one place at easycater.com.

• 4:00Emily Kwong?

  So Angela, we are talking about waste to energy plants. These are facilities that can burn our trash to create electricity. How do they work exactly?

• 4:09Speaker 02

  I didn't know the answer to this either. So I actually went on a trip to the Spokane Waste to Energy Facility in Washington State to find out.

• 4:20Speaker 06

  So this is the furnace.

• 4:22Emily Kwong?

  Oh, wow. Okay.

• 4:23Speaker 06

  So like I said, that's over 2,000 degrees in there. Nice place to work in the wintertime.

• 4:30Emily Kwong?

  I bet.

• 4:31Speaker 02

  I met Chris Ebert there. He's a director in the Public Works Division, and he took me on a tour of the facility to see the whole process. And this building was big, like nine stories tall. And as you heard, it was also really loud.

• 4:44Emily Kwong?

  Yeah, it sounds loud.

• 4:46Speaker 02

  Also, he showed me something really cool.

• 4:48Speaker 06

  Those boxes, are they Antarctica waste? A lot of times, they'll be frozen, so we have to let them sit for a little bit to let them thaw out.

• 4:56Emily Kwong?

  Wait, what? Like, the garbage sent from Antarctica, generated by people at, I guess, research stations there?

• 5:01Speaker 02

  Who knew, right? And the other thing, Emily, is there was so much trash, constantly getting pushed and piling up against this, like, 40-foot wall.

• 5:12Emily Kwong?

  How many, like, days of trash do you think that is?

• 5:15Speaker 06

  Uh, that's about six days' worth of trash.

• 5:18Emily Kwong?

  Wow. I mean, it's stacked from floor to ceiling.

• 5:20Speaker 06

  Yeah, well, it gets a lot higher than this, you know?

• 5:23Speaker 02

  Once the trash arrives at the facility, it's fluffed and dried, and then it's put into the boiler to burn.

• 5:29Emily Kwong?

  Okay, how does all this get turned into energy?

• 5:32Speaker 02

  Well, the facility runs water in the wall, next to the furnace, as the trash is burning. And the water heats up and it becomes steam. And then the steam is processed through a turbine to make electricity, which I thought was, like, a pretty cool process. But the facility also has to deal with what's left after all of the burning. The trash is reduced to ash, and then there are materials in it, like aluminum or other metals, that can actually then be sent to recycling and be recovered.

• 5:59Emily Kwong?

  That's pretty cool. How much energy, though, are these facilities actually producing? Can I power my house with it?

• 6:05Speaker 02

  Maybe. The Spokane facility generates enough to power 13,000 homes each year.

• 6:10Emily Kwong?

  Besides the energy this is all creating, are there other reasons why pro-incinerator people like this process?

• 6:16Speaker 02

  Well, for Spokane specifically, the incinerator is the closest place to dispose of trash. It travels a shorter distance than if it went to a landfill.

• 6:24Emily Kwong?

  Okay.

• 6:24Speaker 02

  Also, Spokane sits on an aquifer, so the city didn't want to risk chemicals from landfills leaching into the water. Plus, in general, waste-to-energy facilities also reduce the amount of trash, because after they burn the trash, the ash that's left over after is smaller in volume. And the facilities avoid methane, the major emission from landfills. Although, Emily, speaking of landfills, I do have to say they are much cheaper to send trash to.

• 6:51Emily Kwong?

  Okay, so incinerating trash is more expensive.

• 6:54Speaker 02

  Totally. So for a dollar per ton of trash, it's much more expensive to send to an incinerator.

• 7:00Emily Kwong?

  Oh, okay. Let's talk about the chemical byproducts of all of this, because I thought when you light trash on fire, it releases toxins, there's a lot of smoke. How do they manage that?

• 7:11Speaker 02

  Yeah, so open-air fires definitely do that. And it's true that older incinerators might have also had a lot of these problems.

• 7:18Speaker 03

  In like the 60s, 70s, and so on, when they were first built, there was not a lot of air pollution control systems. So you would see smoke, you know, material getting exhausted into the atmosphere. You didn't have controls on them, even for dust, a particulate matter.

• 7:33Speaker 02

  That's Marco Costaldi. Again, I should also say that he's on the steering group for the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council. That's a nonprofit headquartered at Columbia University. Marco says that systems for combustion and filtering have improved, and they're able to better monitor the emissions that they're creating. That being said, there's definitely some toxic emissions that the facility has to deal with. First, there's the ash after the recyclables have been removed. And this ash is pretty nasty. It has chemicals like mercury and lead. The other part is what you mentioned, the smoke and the gas, which contains a cocktail of chemicals. So the facility has to filter all of that out. And each facility might be a little bit different,

• 8:15Speaker 02

  but the one in Spokane injects chemicals to neutralize the toxins and then physically filters out the particulates in these giant fabric filters.

• 8:23Emily Kwong?

  That's pretty cool, these modern facilities. So how do the anti-incinerator people feel about these innovations?

• 8:30Speaker 02

  They don't think it's enough.

• 8:32Speaker 04

  Just because industry started calling it waste to energy doesn't make it anything other than incinerations.

• 8:37Speaker 02

  That's Jessica Roth again, from Gaia.

• 8:39Speaker 04

  Waste to energy was a way for the incinerator industries to get more funding, to sort of perpetuate the myth that what they were doing was not harmful and that they should be continuing to operate.

• 8:52Speaker 02

  So Gaia is an international organization that was founded to advocate against incinerators. One of their main arguments is that incinerators produce toxic emissions that are bad for your health. So like we said, a cocktail of gases.

• 9:05Emily Kwong?

  But we just heard Chris say at the facility in Spokane that it's clean. Is Gaia thinking of older incinerators or open trash fires, maybe?

• 9:15Speaker 02

  No, so they're talking about the same facilities. And this was surprising to me because I thought for emissions, like, we have numbers on that, right? Like, the data says that they're high or they're not. The chemicals at the Spokane facility measures, they're all under the regulatory levels. And experts like Marco said that we have to be realistic about how clean something is really able to get.

• 9:35Speaker 03

  Anytime we're dealing with garbage or processes, there's going to be some emissions. So the regulatory framework for these waste-to-energy facilities have some of the most stringent limits. And these facilities operate actually below that.

• 9:53Speaker 02

  To be clear, landfills have been linked to some negative health effects as well. And that's what waste management experts kept saying to me, that there's just no such thing as zero risk. So when it comes to toxic chemicals from burning our trash, regulatory bodies set limits based on minimal risk.

• 10:09Speaker 03

  Really, you know, one could argue, okay, are those limits appropriate or not and so on? That's a different discussion.

• 10:15Speaker 02

  But to environmental justice activists like Jessica, this is not a different discussion at all.

• 10:21Speaker 04

  The fact is, is that the emissions that come out of incinerators are really toxic and really dangerous. Like, I don't want the smallest amount of that in my living space, and I should be allowed not to have that, but I'm not if I live here in an incinerator.

• 10:34Speaker 02

  So these two sides really don't...

• 10:37Emily Kwong?

  Agree on the safety of the emissions that are being created by incinerators. But shouldn't science help us prove this? Like, chemicals don't lie. So you can measure whether a chemical that's being created, emitted, has a certain health effect in an area. I mean, what does research show?

• 10:56Speaker 02

  So that was actually a really tough part to wade through. There are studies showing higher rates of asthma, cancer, birth defects in communities near incinerators. And then there are also studies showing the opposite, that the incinerators aren't linked to increases in health conditions, especially in newer incinerators with better technology. One paper even looked at the chemical level in chicken eggs near an incinerator. So that's how deep we're getting here. And sometimes these studies were even funded by the environmental justice organizations or by parties that are linked to incinerators.

• 11:27Emily Kwong?

  These are like dueling science swords. It makes it hard to figure out who's right.

• 11:31Speaker 02

  Right.

• 11:32Emily Kwong?

  This cacophony of scientific information representing different points of view.

• 11:35Speaker 02

  Yeah. So I searched all over for someone who might be able to speak to this as more of a third party. I found Peter Tate. He's a doctor in Australia. He did some systematic reviews of the literature, and he did find some papers correlating incinerators with health conditions like cancers, miscarriages, or birth defects.

• 11:54Emily Kwong?

  Okay.

• 11:54Speaker 02

  And some studies show that incinerator workers had more coughing and skin irritation than workers from other industries. So maybe that suggests some occupational exposure.

• 12:05Speaker 07

  Now, we have to use these weasely, likely, maybe, possibly, because there are potentially confounding factors.

• 12:13Speaker 02

  Peter says the best you can say is that incinerators have some potential for harm, but that there may be other reasons for the health problems in a community.

• 12:22Emily Kwong?

  Okay.

• 12:23Speaker 02

  Many of the largest incinerators are located near low-income communities or communities of color, and these are communities that are already more likely to experience air pollution from highways or environmental risks from contaminated sites. And for the studies that don't show any health effects, Peter says that might be because some things like cancer and birth defects take a long time to show up. So it might take decades to manifest whether a newer, more advanced incinerator, whether that's associated with less harm.

• 12:50Speaker 07

  And I don't think there has been enough exposure for long enough to be able to say. So. Yes, proponents can say there is no evidence. But the problem is that a lack of evidence doesn't mean that you don't try and do the best available work to minimize risk of exposure and therefore risk of harm.

• 13:12Emily Kwong?

  Reducing harm has to be something everyone can agree on. So how should companies be communicating the potential harms of incinerators?

• 13:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, so Peter says that the companies that manage incinerators should consider and listen to the community. And this is really important because, like we just said, a lot of incinerators are in lower income communities or communities of color. And they often have less say in what gets built around them.

• 13:36Speaker 07

  Communities need to be allowed to make an informed decision about whether they want to wear that risk of whatever size it is on our general behalf.

• 13:48Speaker 02

  And if people do live near an incinerator, Peter says it's important for the industry to be transparent with them about the monitoring and emissions data.

• 13:55Emily Kwong?

  That would be cool. And while more research is being done about incinerators, at least I hope, fingers crossed, do we build more of them? Do we get rid of them?

• 14:05Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's hard to say, right? But both sides were in total agreement about one thing. We need less trash altogether.

• 14:13Speaker 06

  We don't want to keep generating more waste. We want to strive towards zero waste principles.

• 14:19Speaker 04

  The real answer is waste diversion and waste reduction and redesign and all of these upstream measures. By the time you're at the bottom of the chain, there are no good options.

• 14:33Emily Kwong?

  That is so interesting that they all agree we need less trash, including those who want to see incinerators be a trash solution in our communities.

• 14:43Speaker 02

  Yeah, and so they all agree, which kind of gives me hope, right? There's no good way to get rid of trash and it has to be dealt with somewhere. But before you do that, always consider ways that you can reduce, reuse, recycle, or compost.

• 14:57Emily Kwong?

  Sticking in those alternatives to trash right at the end. Nicely done. Angela Zhang, Stanford Health Equity Media Fellow. Thank you so much for this reporting.

• 15:05Speaker 02

  Thanks for having me.

• 15:07Emily Kwong?

  Short Weavers, you know there's no other show that will delve as deeply into trash as ours. So make us a part of your daily habit by following our show right now. Hit that little button and we'll come in with some more goodies tomorrow. This episode was produced by Hannah Chin and edited by our showrunner, Rebecca Ramirez. Tyler Jones checked the facts. Robert Rodriguez was the audio engineer. I'm Emily Kwong. Thank you for listening to Short Wave from NPR. See you next time.

• 15:35Speaker 00

  Stay tuned for the following announcements and messages from our sponsors.

• 15:39Emily Kwong?

  This election season, let the NPR Politics podcast save your time and your sanity. We'll help you understand key races, which polls you can safely ignore, and what might happen if power shifts in Congress. Our short, daily episodes come out every afternoon, so you can spend less time scrolling through each chaotic news cycle. Make NPR Politics your hub for midterm election coverage. Follow our podcast on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 16:04Speaker 00

  Midlife brings a lot of changes. Your Turn with Alison Aubrey is a new podcast to help you navigate the twists and turns. From health and relationships to creativity and purpose, we can help steer your next chapter with Your Turn with Alison Aubrey. Find it on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. Support comes from NPR sponsor AARP.