Final recommendation report

Final recommendation report

Executive SummaryThis recommendation report examines the feasibility of implementing waste-to-energy power plants as a method of waste removal, as opposed to the landfills that currently house most of Torontos waste. The recommendation is based on the evaluation of this technique from different perspectives. All the areas of discussion are outlined below: Environmental Perspective: Overfilling of landfillsAir pollution Eradication of worse energy sourcesImplementation Perspective:Transportation and Storage of Municipal Solid WasteEnergy Generation and Distribution Hazardous Material ManagementDesign PerspectiveModes of energy generationPlant designConstraints in a power plantEthical Perspective:Human healthEnergy and environmentWorkplace Hazards and SafetyPolitical Perspective:Government legislationPublic policies International tradesBusiness Perspective:Cost of implementationJob opportunities

Table of Contents

Executive Summary2Table of Contents31.0 Introduction52.0 Environmental Impacts62.1 Overfilling of landfills62.2 Air pollution62.3 Eradication of worse energy sources 62.4 Environmental Perspective Conclusion73.0 Implementation Impacts83.1 Transportation and Storage of Municipal Solid Waste83.2 Energy Generation and Distribution83.3 Hazardous Material Management83.4 Implementation Perspective Conclusion94.0 Design Impacts104.1 Modes of energy generation104.2 Plant Design104.3 Constraints in power plant114.4 Design Perspective Conclusion115.0 Ethical Impacts125.1 Human Health125.2 Environment and Energy Production125.3 Workplace Hazards and Safety135.4 Ethical Perspective Conclusion136.0 Political Impacts146.1 Government Legislation146.2 Public policies146.3 International trades156.4 Political Perspective Conclusion157.0 Business Impacts167.1 Cost of Implementation167.2 Job Opportunities167.3 Business Perspective Conclusion178.0 Conclusion188.0 Recommendations199.0 References20

List of FiguresFigure 1 Characteristic of WTE Power Plants10

List of TablesTable 1 Agreements and Disagreements on Implementing WTE plants7Table 2 Cost range of various technologies16Table 3 Impacts of Various labour Categories16Table 4 Decision Matrix19

1.0 Introduction The average Canadian citizen produces 777 kilograms of garbage per year, whereas the average of all other countries is just 578 kilograms (CBC, 2013). The waste accumulating is only increasing as time progresses and our landfills are brimming to their maximum capacity. Until 2010, Torontos garbage was shipped to the state of Michigan to be filled into landfills (The Star, 2010). The shipment only stopped because Michigan denied accepting anymore waste as their landfills were filling up. Torontos current day garbage is transported to London to a landfill and that location will too get filled in the near future, putting Toronto in a desperate garbage disposal problem. In addition to the garbage problem, 17 % of Ontarios energy consumed is generated from greenhouse gas emitting sources (Ontario Power Generation, 2010). Garbage disposal and harmful energy generation are two issues that affect Toronto in an economic and environmental perspective. To combat these problems, Sweden uses waste to energy power plants and because of this they were able to reduce the amount of garbage sent to landfills to an astounding 1% (Freden, 2014). These waste to energy power plants solve the waste disposal problem and also generate cleaner electricity.In order to solve Torontos garbage problem and concerns about greenhouse emitting energy generation, we are writing a recommendation report to determine if it is feasible to implement waste to energy power plants. The purpose of this report is to assess the waste to energy plants from all the applicable perspective. The research from the report will cover the following perspectives:1. Environmental Perspective: (1) Eradication of worse energy sources (2) Overfilling of landfills (3) Air Pollution2. Implementation Perspective: (1) Transportation and Storage of Municipal Solid Waste (2) Energy Generation and Distribution (3) Hazardous Material Management3. Design Perspective: (1) Modes of energy generation (2) Plant Design (3) Constraints in power plant4. Ethical Perspective: (1) Human Health (2) Environment and Energy Production (3) Workplace Hazards and Safety5. Political Perspective: (1) Government Legislation (2) Public policies (3) International trades6. Business Perspective: (1) Cost of Implementation (2) Job OpportunitiesThese findings will help assess the feasibility of waste to energy power plants in Toronto and provide us with the ability to recommend or reject this technology.

2.0 Environmental Perspective: Kuldeep RavalThis part of the report discusses the environmental impacts of implementing the waste to energy power plants in Toronto. The purpose of this writing this report is to comment on the feasibility of implementing waste to energy power plants. I came to the conclusion based on findings from three points: (1) Overfilling of Landfills/ Waste Management, (2) Air Pollution, and (3) The eradication of bad energy sources. 2.1 Overfilling of Landfills/ Waste ManagementIn Toronto, there is a great amount of garbage produced every day and this is putting a strain on the landfills. If garbage production continues at this rate, all the landfill space in Ontario will be used up and we will be on the brink of a waste disposal crisis (Campbell and Dharmarajah, 2011). The implementation of waste to energy power plants will help ease the load on landfills and solve the problem that Toronto is currently facing. Sweden had the same dilemma as Toronto and they solved their problem by sending their garbage to waste to energy power plants. Because of this, Sweden converts 99% of its waste to energy and this prevents the use of landfills (Anadolu Agency, 2014). Based on looking at the effects of waste to energy power plants on landfill space, it is clear that Torontos landfills would benefit from this technology. 2.2 Air pollutionClimate change is a big problem in the world and air pollution is contributing to that. The implementation of waste to energy power plants will cause the emission of pollutants. When these plants were implemented in Sweden, it was evident that large amounts of dioxins were being produced due to waste to energy plants (Bergvall, 1987). A dioxin is a toxic and dangerous environmental pollutant. Also, many older designs of these plants release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane (Butler, Dlugokencky and Montzka, 2011). The use of waste to energy plants in Toronto will lead to the discharge of harmful gases and this will have a negative effect on climate change. 2.3 Eradication of worse energy sourcesToronto relies on many different sources to provide energy. But a bulk of the energy that we use comes from highly polluting and non-renewable energy sources. The two highly polluting sources are coal and natural gas and they provide 17% of Torontos energy (Ontario Power Generation, 2010). Waste incineration is a great alternative to burning fossil fuels for the following reasons:1. Emissions of greenhouse gases are much lower from waste incineration than fossil fuels (Business Insights, 1993). 2. Coal and natural gas are non-renewable sources of energy (Cook, n.d.) while waste incineration is renewable. 3. Waste to energy plants get rid of waste helping ease load on landfills while coal creates more waste to go into landfills (University of Kentucky, 2015). Using waste to energy power plants is a great way to avoid the usage of highly polluting and non-renewable energy sources. 2.4 Environmental Perspective conclusionThere were many factors to be considered from the environmental perspective for implementing waste to energy plants. Table 1 Table listing agreements or disagreements of implementing WTE plantsPointAgreeNeutralDisagree

Overfilling of landfills/ Waste management

Air pollution

Eradication of worse energy sources

Based on the table above, I have come to the conclusion to recommend the implementation of waste to energy power plants. A waste to energy plant is a better source for energy than many of the current sources we use in Toronto. Furthermore, it eliminates the current problem we face with landfills. Like anything, there are cons to this project but the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.

3.0 Implementation Perspective: Avneet Saran The purpose of this report is to study the viability of constructing a Waste-to-Energy power plant in the city of Toronto. Implementation impacts contain three topics of assessment which are (1) transportation of municipal solid waste, (2) energy generation and distribution and (3) hazardous materials management. These topics will be examined and the result will determine the viability of a waste-to-energy power plant from the implementation perspective.

3.1 Transportation of Municipal Solid WasteThe transportation of Municipal Solid Waste to a waste to energy power plant can be done efficiently and effectively with the current waste transportation system in Toronto. Toronto is presently transferring waste to the Green Lane landfill located in London Ont. Toronto waste is being transported by long haul trucking to Green Lane by diesel trucks. Approximately 140 trucks transfer up to 10, 000 tons of solid waste per day. Through the transport of the waste by long-haul truck, there is high amount fuel and resource consumption (CBC News, 2013). The present waste export system that is in place in Toronto can be rerouted to a waste-to-energy power plant. The rerouting of waste would be effective because it will cut down on transportation costs of the current system.

3.2 Energy Generation and DistributionThe generation and distribution of heat, electricity and recovered metal from a waste to energy power plant can be achieved through existing infrastructure in the city of Toronto. A constructed waste to energy plant can produce approximately 75 mega-watts of electricity which is enough to supply 26000 homes with energy. Additionally, about 60,000 kg of metal would be recovered per day (Ontario Power Generation, 2010). Electricity produced can be transported to the grid through a transfer station and heat generated can be used for district heating locally. Any by-product such as metal that is recovered can be used beneficially within the city for construction (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2014).

3.3 Hazardous Materials ManagementOptimal energy generation can be achieved by removing hazardous material from the solid waste with the use of existing technologies. Glue, light bulbs and batteries are shown to be the primary hazardous materials accounting for nearly 0.4% of the total waste stream (Durmusoglua E, 2010). Experiments conducted at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology have proven that efficient removal of batteries and other waste materials can be achieved with the use of rotating trammel system (University of hong kong, 2005). A similar trammel system can be constructed within the power plant to ensure safe and optimal energy generation.

3.4 Implementation Perspective Conclusion My analysis of the implementation perspective of waste to energy power plants shows that constructing a plant in the city of Toronto would be beneficial and can be done easily with the use of existing infrastructure and technologies. Transportation of waste can be done with the use of the current transport system. Energy, heat and metal can be distributed within the city with the use of existing infrastructure. Removal of hazardous material from the waste can be done with the use of a trammel system. Therefore it is recommended from an implementation standpoint that the city of Toronto should and can easily implement a waste to energy power plant to meet the cities energy and waste disposal needs.

4.0 Design Perspective: Akash PatelWaste disposal in the city of Toronto has always been a problem. In implementing waste to energy power plants as a possible solution to the problem, I will summarize and analyze the design impacts for this technology. The overall assessment of this impact will be based on three criteria: (1) method of generation, (2) plant design and (3) design constraints.4.1 Method of GenerationThere are currently three main processes used by the existing waste to energy power plants to generate electricity from waste. The three processes are as follows: (1) Incineration, (2) Gasification and (3) Pyrolysis. A certain process is utilized at specific plants depending on various criteria which include composition of garbage in the area, efficiency and the impacts on the environment (Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). The composition of the garbage depends on the location and the type of waste accumulated. The efficiency is ratio of the trash burned to the electricity generated (Berkeley, 2013). The environment impacts of each process are evaluated in terms of the products and to what extent they affect the environment. For a city like Toronto where most of its waste is accumulated from residents, a process used in an existing plant in the capital of Sweden can be used as they share similar characteristics. Data from existing plants around the world shows that gasification is the ideal process overall when it comes to efficiency and environmental impacts. From the three modes of electricity generation, gasification is the ideal method for Toronto.

Figure 1 Characteristics of the different WTE technology

4.2 Power Plant DesignTorontos garbage is exported out of the city to dump in landfills on a daily basis. With the landfills filling up, it is a necessity to implement a clean solution. The province of Ontario is on a mission to improve its 17% greenhouse gas emitting energy generation. This would make it an ideal place for implementing a waste to energy power plant (Ontario Power Generation, 2010). All waste to energy power plants share similar major components. A furnace, post combustion chamber, gas turbine and emission control area are four crucial components of any waste to energy plant. The burning of the waste all starts in the furnace (Integra Global Green Energy, 2011). In the post combustion chamber, the burning of the waste is fully completed and products are formed. The products then proceed through the turbines to generate electricity. The emission control area is where the remains from the combustion sit (Columbia University, 2011). These vital components are a must and should be taken into consideration when designing the power plant for Toronto.4.3 Constraints in Plant DesignWastes to energy power plants have certain design constraints in order to optimize efficiency. For a plant to be optimized it must have a minimum of 320 000 to 400 00 tons of waste to burn. Also it must have a connection to local grid lines for electricity delivery, transportation from and to the plant, and a sufficient water source for cooling purposes (Keppel Seghers, 2011). Along with all that, the plant must run 8000 hours annually in order to be efficient (Upsala Univesitet, 2012). The Greater Toronto area produces 2000 tonnes of garbage a day (CBC News, 2010). After doing the math, Toronto will require two medium sized power plants that burn 350 000 tonnes of garbage per year to accommodate the waste accumulated annually. The work of premier Dalton McGuinty made Ontario a coal free province in the year 2015 (Desmog Canada, 2014). This movement left the coal plants abandoned and to corrode away. These abandoned coal plants could easily be converted to waste to energy power plants. Their location is perfect geologically as they have transportation from and to the plant for the coal and they have connections to the gridlines for electricity delivery. The only element missing is a sufficient water source. Due to the fact that Toronto is close to a great lake, water is never an issue and can be delivered with ease. With most of the work already done for the plant, implementing waste to energy plants in the abandoned coal plants is a plausible possibility.4.4 Design Perspective ConclusionThe analysis of the design impacts using the three criteria results in favouring the implementation of waste to energy power plants in Toronto. It is feasible to use the incineration process for the waste to energy plant as it dominates the other two processes in the chosen criteria. The plant should also contain the 4 major components: the furnace, post combustion chamber, gas turbine and an emission control system. The abandoned coal plants of Ontario are an ideal location as they are well equipped to implement these wastes to energy power plants. Therefore, after taking these facts into consideration, I believe waste to energy power plants are the perfect solution to Torontos garbage problem.

5.0 Ethical Perspective: Mausami NaikEthics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues (Andre & Velasquez, 1987). Going by this definition, the topics discussed in my research report, which was presented to you earlier, will be evaluated. They are: 1) human health, 2) energy and environment, 3) workplace hazards and safety of workers. After this, I will give my recommendation on the whether the implementation of WTE plants in Toronto is the right choice.

5.1 Human Health

Being able to live a healthy lifestyle is a human right. Evaluating the two technologies, landfills seem to be more dangerous for the residences living nearby. Both the cancer risk and the possibility of adverse health effects were greater for people living near landfills. The study done by the Ontario Ministry of Environment showed that the cancer risks ranged from 1 in 4.4million people to 1 in 21 million people for incineration plants, while they ranged from 1 in 100,000 people to 1 in 250,000 people for landfills (Ontario Ministry of Environment, 1999). Although these ratios seem relatively small, when the differences are compared, there is a striking contrast between the two. Also, landfills release harmful pollutants like methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide (Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy, 1997). On the other hand, Swedens WTE plants release only non-toxic carbon dioxide and water (Swedish Institute, 2014). The effect on human health of the harmful pollutants is much greater, with the possibility of headache, nausea, vomiting, palpitations, increased blood pressure and even coma and death in some cases (Health Protection Agency, 2011). Looking at these two results, the safer and more ethical choice is definitely Swedens waste-to-energy plants.

5.2 Energy and Environment

Looking at the issues of climate change and non-renewable resource exhaustion, landfills pose a bigger threat to the energy resources and environment. Canadas top 3 energy resources are nuclear, hydro, and gas/oil (Ontario Energy Board, 2014). 90% of Canadas energy production comes from non-renewable sources (Smith, 2014). The issue with non-renewable energy consumption is that over time, it will run out. Also, the greenhouse gases that landfills produce pose a threat to the environment as they are contributors of climate change. With the increase of carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years due to industrial activities, using a waste disposal technology that again adds to the pollution does not seem to be helping the environment in any way (United States Global Change Research Program, 2009). WTE plants are better for two reasons. First of all, humans will never stop producing waste. Therefore, the source of energy, which is household garbage, will never fall short. Secondly, the incineration plants, as stated in the previous paragraph, only produce non-toxic carbon dioxide and water as waste. This means that the amount of damage they do to the environment is relatively much lesser. For these reasons, looking at the protection and sustainability of the environment and limited energy sources, the waste-to-energy plants are a better and more ethical choice.

5.3 Workplace Hazards and Safety

The operation of both landfills and WTE incineration plants requires manual labour. Therefore, the safety of all the workers should be one of the main areas to be considered when making a decision. A case study at an incineration plant in Finland reported that employees working at the site are exposed to high levels of endotoxins, microbes, dust, and noise levels that exceed threshold values (Kari & Outi, 2005). On the other hand, a case study at a landfill in Poland showed that employees are exposed to bacterial and fungal aerosols (Kalwasiska, Burkowska, & Brzezinska, 2013). Both conditions are harmful to the workers. However, at a landfill site, many workers are needed at the sorting station. Their job requires them to sort out garbage bags one after the other. At an incineration plant, most machines are automated, leaving minimal manual labour for the workers. According to both studies, safety equipment is provided at both sites. However, because workers do not need to manually handle the waste with their hands, the work at the WTE plants is relatively safer. Therefore, I would again recommend the implementation of the WTE plants in Toronto.

5.4 Ethical Perspective Conclusion

Judging from the three areas discussed above, I would like to go ahead with recommending the WTE plants as the waste disposal treatment in Toronto. It is a much better technology when protecting human health, sustaining the environment and non-renewable energy resources, and for the safety of the workers. Furthermore, it also helps get rid of the garbage that piles up and takes up space in the landfills. Implementing WTE plants will help in removing waste from these lands, so that they can be used for other means that benefit the society. Looking back at the definition of ethics written at the beginning, these reasons are valid enough to say that WTE system is the right choice.

6.0 Political Perspective: Jigar SolankiImplementing waste to energy power plants is a very likely solution for Torontos landfill problems. The purpose of my research part is to examine and analyze the political impacts that will be encountered due to the implementation of WTE plants in Toronto. I will focus on the three criterias: 1) Government legislation regarding the construction of WTE plants, (2) Public polices and rights for the community (3) International trade possibilities with other countries.

6.1 Government LegislationWaste to energy plants all over North America are regulated under two acts, the federal clean air act and the resource conservation recovery act. The federal clean air act will require WTE plants built in Toronto to obtain permits. The required permits are based on plant size and technology, have emissions limits for sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulates, cadmium, lead, mercury, and dioxins (Alam, 2014). Also the operating conditions, monitoring, reporting, training and safety requirements have to be met to required standards of Toronto. This act will allow Torontos pollution to stay reasonably low and make sure plants are located in rural areas. Many safety precautions will have to be taken creating a safe work environment for employees of the WTE plant. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is to protect communities and conserve resources. The Act requires the testing of plants ash residue to determine if the ash is hazardous and to make sure it is properly disposed (Quan, 2014). The Act will require By-products created by WTE plants to be taken care of in a safe manner to protect communities in Toronto. Along with the acts, Toronto must also follow province specific requirements which can include additional solid waste management, recycling, noise, site selection, transportation and related regulations; and water use or waste water management limits (Quan, 2014). Overall WTE plants in Toronto will need to follow these acts to protect current Toronto communities and create a safe working environment at the WTE plants.6.2 Public PolicyThe publics shifting opinion between landfills and WTE plants is currently favouring WTE plants. While some are arguing landfills are the better solution the majority does know that WTE is the more probable solution for the future. WTE plants burn the solid waste instead of allowing it to be sent to landfills. Nearly one tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions are avoided for every ton on solid waste handled by WTE plants (Michaels, 2014). Cities using WTE plants have an increased recycling rate by nearly 20 percent (Michaels, 2014). For every 150 ton of waste consumed, there will be enough energy to power 5000 homes (Michaels, 2014). This not only solves Torontos landfill problems but converts it into an energy source to power Toronto communities. WTE plants are overall in favor of the community and should be considered as a very plausible solution.

6.3 International TradesToronto had a huge increase in international trade due to its landfill crisis. International trade between Canada and Michigan occurred between 2003 and 2010. Toronto's waste was exported to landfill sites in Michigan, due to Toronto landfills reaching max capacity (Boyd, 2011). This was not just very expensive and caused a large amount of pollution, but also showed the rest of the world Toronto cannot handle its own waste and needs the assistants of others. On the other hand Sweden who currently is able to recycle 99% of its garbage using WTE plants are able to imports waste from UK, Italy, Norway, nearly 800,000 tonnes of wasteper year to recycle. (Lum, 2014). This increases the reputation of the country in recycling and increases International trades by assisting other countries in recycling their garbage. Toronto should consider taking such a path by implementing WTE plants, especially as its landfill is estimated to be filled up by 2029.6.4 Political Perspective ConclusionImplementing WTE plants in Toronto will be a great benefit to all the communities and is in favour of the public. When installed, Toronto must follow under the federal clean air act and the resource conservation recovery act. This will allow communities to stay healthy, make sure WTE plant work conditions are safe and waste is managed in a clean manner. The reduced landfills and extra electricity generated will only please Toronto residences and make sure Toronto never has a garbage crisis. I believe WTE plants would be a great implementation for Toronto to solve its landfill problems.

7.0 Business Perspective: Maninderjit JoharThis part of the report will concentrate on how the new proposed waste-to-energy plant will impact the city of Torontos economy. This perspective will show my research and final recommendations for the budget of the new plant, and the jobs produced by this new plant. 7.1 Budget and Business PlanThe capital cost of the new plant varies with the different technology being used in the plant. The table below shows the cost range per kilowatt for the four main technologies being used to produce energy from waste (Stringfellow & Witherell, 2014):

Table 2 Cost range of different types of plant technologyTechnologyCost Range (per kW)

Direct Combustion$7,000 - $10,000

Pyrolysis$8,000 - $11,500

Conventional Gasification$7,500 - $11,000

Plasma Arc Gasification$8,000 - $11,500

For instance, it was estimated by using Pyrolysis technology in the new plant of Uruguay, the capital cost will be approximately US $420 million (Rodriguez, 2011). Furthermore, waste-to-energy plants will generate electricity from waste which will save land and contribute to the citys revenue. There has been evidence from The Lancaster Solid Waste Management Authority in Pennsylvania that stated, 7.5 million tons of waste was processed in the plant which generated $256 million in electric revenue and protected 190 acres of farmland (SWANA, 2012). Therefore, city of Toronto will profit from this new plant.7.2 Job OpportunitiesThe new waste-to-energy plant will not only create jobs in the waste-to-energy sector but even outside of this sector. The table below shows how these waste-to-energy plants impacted job creation (Berenyi, 2013):

Table 3 The impacts of different types of labor categories CategoryImpact

Direct Labor Impacts381 workers in 6 plants

Direct Labor Earnings$32.7 million in wages, salaries and benefits

Job Multiplier Impact558 full time jobs produced outside WTE sector

Labor Income Multiplier Impact$27.4 million in wages, salaries and benefits outside the WTE sector

Total Jobs Impact939 full-time jobs

Total Labor Income Impact$60.0 million in wages, salaries and benefits

Furthermore, in the United States these plants have created 14,000 jobs and produced $5.6 billion of gross economic sales output (Berenyi, 2013). Therefore, these plants can produce many job opportunities in Toronto.7.3 Business Perspective ConclusionThe new plant in the city of Toronto will be really beneficial for the city and its residents. Even though the capital costs of this plant are very high, it will generate enough revenue in 7-8 years to cover up all the capital costs. Furthermore, it will also create new jobs inside waste-to-energy sector as well as outside this sector as more land will be available as stated above. Therefore, instead of wasting the garbage and land, it could be used in waste-to-energy plants to generate electricity and revenue while saving land. Based on these facts, I recommend the implantation of this technology in Toronto.

8.0 Conclusion The goal of this report was to assess the feasibility of implementing waste to energy plants in Toronto by looking at it through various different perspectives. We believe that it is a very good idea to implement these WTE plants in Toronto. The usefulness of these plants were assessed through the following perspectives: Environmental Perspective Potential to reduce waste in landfills by 99% (Anadolu Agency, 2014) Implementation Perspective Helps eliminate the transport of waste by long-haul trucks, thus eliminating high amount of fuel and resource consumption (CBC News, 2013) Design Perspective The efficiency of the waste disposal will increase. (Berkeley, 2013) Ethical Perspective WTE plants release only non-toxic carbon dioxide and water (Swedish Institute, 2014) Political Perspective Assists in International trade in which up to 800,000 tonnes of waste can be imported every year (Lum, 2014) Business Perspective The city of Toronto will profit from these plants (SWANA, 2012)All the different perspectives that were researched agreed that the benefits of implementing waste to energy plants in Toronto outweigh the risks. Based on the facts, our group agrees that it is feasible to implement this technology in Toronto and strongly recommends it.

9.0 Recommendations Table 4 Recommendations by all the group members NamePerspective Verdict

Kuldeep RavalEnvironmental Recommend

Avneet SaranImplementation Recommend

Akash PatelDesignRecommend

Mausami NaikEthicalRecommend

Jigar SolankiPoliticalRecommend

Maninderjit JoharBusiness Recommend

As seen by the table above, our team strongly recommends proceeding with implementing waste to energy power plants in Toronto. This is a great solution to the garbage and green house emitting energy generation problem. Although the research was carried out well, there may be some limitations to the content as this is still a fairly new technology. The development of this technology only really started in the early 21st century (Solid Waste Association of North America, 2012). The next steps would be to actually look into the design and implementation factors and proceed to higher authorities for the approval of this project. Also, a good idea would be to gather a team that closely studies the existing plants in Sweden. After this, a team would work closely with Swedish authorities to plan a path for implementation. The steps mentioned above are ideally what should follow this report. In order for the organization to be successful in this project, it is a must that they refer to the recommendations and educate themselves with the conclusions drawn in this report.

ReferencesAbdulAzizQ. (2014). Integra Global Green Energy Inc. Canada.Retrieved from http://www.integraglobalgreenenergy.com/energywasta_conversion.htmAn Duong, V. (2014, May 1). Waste-To-Energy Analysis: A Simulation Model. Retrieved from http://www.funginstitute.berkeley.edu/sites/default/les/WasteToEnergy.pdfAnadolu Agency. (2014). Sweden works not to waste its energy. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/1561366911?accountid=13631Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (1987). What is Ethics? Issues in Ethics, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/whatis.htmlBerenyi, E.B. (2013, August). Nationwide Economic Benefits of the Waste to Energy Sector. Retrieved fromhttp://www.wte.org/userfiles/files/130820%20Berenyi%20Nat%27l%20WTE%20Economic%20Benefits.pdfBergvall, G. (1987). New Emission Limits for Waste-To-Energy Plants in Sweden.Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/pdf/0734242x/v05i0003/403_nelfwpis.xmlBridges, J. W., Bridges O., Scott, P., & Vince, I. (2000). The Evaluation of Possible Health Risks to Landfill Site Workers from Exposure to Gaseous Waste Emissions. Retrived from http://warrr.org/723/1/The_Evaluation_of_Possible_Health_Risks_to_Landfill_Site_Workers_from_Exposure_to_Gaseous_Waste_Emissions.pdf

Business Insights. (1993). Burn the waste: Swedens way. Retrieved from http://bi.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/global/article/GALE%7CA14470565/6fa53f54da7a07a14c9ee44a6fa7b699?u=rpu_mainBultler, J., Dlugokencky, E., Montzka, S. (2011). Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change. Nature, 476(7358). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/883396195?accountid=13631 (Peer Reviewed) Campbell, D., Dharmarajah, T. (2011). Ontario landfills filling up fast. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/898862178?accountid=13631Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy. (1997). Methane, Climate Change and Waste Management: A review of efforts by Toronto, Ontario and Canada to reduce waste related emissions of methane. Retrieved from http://cielap.org/pdf/Methane.pdfCBC News. (2013). Canadians produce more garbage than anyone else. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-produce-more-garbage-than-anyone-else-

Cook, P. (n.d.). Sustainability and Non-renewable Resources. Environmental Geosciences, 6(4), 185-190. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-0984.1999.64004.x (Peer Reviewed) Durmusoglua E., Taspinar F. B., & Karademir A., (2010). Health Risk Assessment of BTEX Emissions in the Landfill Environments. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 176, pg. 870-877. Retrived from http://journals2.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/pdf/03043894/v176i1-3/870_hraobeitle.xml

Energy Recovery from Waste | Municipal Solid Waste. (2014, October 1). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/wte/index.htmEnvironmental Protection Agency. (2014). Wastes-Non-Hazardous Waste-Municipal Solid Waste. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municpial/wte/

Environment Canada. (2014). Municipal Solid Waste and the Environment.Retrieved from http://ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/default.asp?lang=En&n=5F6E5596-1

Freden, J. (2014). The Swedish Recycling Revolution. Retrieved from https://sweden.se/nature/the-swedish-recycling-revolution/

Generating energy from waste, including anaerobic digestion. (2013, January 22). Retrieved, from https://www.gov.uk/generating-energy-from-waste-including-anaerobic-digestionGhoreishi, O. (2013, January 23). Canada Highest Per Capita Waste Producer Compared to Other Developed Nations. Retrieved from http://www.theepochtimes .com/n2/Canada /canada- highest-per-capita-waste-producer-compared-to-other-developed-nations- 339142.htmlHealth Protection Agency. (2011). Impact on Health of Emissions from Landfill Sites. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/334356/RCE-18_for_website_with_security.pdfKalwasiska, A., Burkowska, A., & Brzezinska, M. (2014). Exposure of Worker of Municipal Landfill Site to Bacterial and Fungal Aerosol. CLEAN Soil, Air, Water, 42 (10), 1337-1343.Kari H.I., & Outi T. K., (2005). Occupational Hygiene in a Waste Incineration Plant. Waste Management, 5(5), 519-529. Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0956053X05000413/1-s2.0-S0956053X05000413-main.pdf?_tid=2004b9b0-c8bd-11e4-9517-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1426167714_597777fd4bb9bd64abc5dacb9cb1fceeKarlsson, L., & Jnsson, T. (2012, April 1). Pre-feasibility Study of a Waste to Energy Plant inChisinau, Moldova. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:510286/FULLTEXT01.pdfKavoussi, B. (2012, December 9). Sweden Must Import Trash For Energy Conversion BecauseIts Recycling Program Is So Successful. Retrieved from http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/sweden-imports-trash_n_1876746.htmlMichael S. (2013). Should Toronto burn its trash?Retrieved from http://www.yongestreetmedia.ca/features/TOincinerators081413.aspxOntario Energy Board. (2014). Ontario Energy Report: Q3 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ontarioenergyreport.ca/pdfs/OEQ%20Electricity%20Q3%202014.pdf?id=0Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (1999). Environmental Risks of Municipal Non-Hazardous Waste Landfilling and Incineration: Technical Report Summary. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Sciences and Standards Division, Standards Development Branch.Ontario Power Generation. (2010). How it works: Electricity Generation. Retrieved from http://www.opg.com/communities-and-partners/teachers-and-students/documents/grade9student.pdfPaul S. (2010). Toronto garbage no longer shipped to Michigan.Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-garbage-no-longer-shipped-to-michigan-1.913880

Rodriguez, M. (2011, October). Cost-benefit analysis of a waste to energy plant for Montevideo; and waste to energy in small islands. Retrieved fromhttp://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Rodriguez_thesis.pdfSmith, K. (2014). Resource-full: Renewables An Update on Canadas Renewable Sources. Canadian Geographic. Retrieved from http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/jun14/canada-renewable-resources.aspSolid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) (2012, Jan. 16). SWANA: Waste To Energy financially beneficial to u.s. Retrieved fromhttp://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2012/01/swana-waste-to-energy-financially-beneficial-to-u-s-.htmlStringfellow, T., Witherell, R. (2014, Jan. 13). An Independent Engineering Evaluation ofWaste-to-Energy Technologies. Retrieved fromhttp://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/01/an-independent-engineering-evaluation-of-waste-to-energy-technologiesSweden puts waste to work. (1988, Oct 02). The Ottawa Citizen Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/239220983?accountid=13631Tyler H. (2007). Waste energy plants to open Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/business/2007/04/12/waste_energy_plant_to_open_in_june.html

United States Global Change Research Program. (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. New York: Cambridge University PressUniversity of Hong Kong. (2005, January 1). Removal of batteries from solid waste using trommel separation. Retrieved March 11, 20015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15979869

University of Kentucky. (2015). Coal Combustion By-Products. Retrieved from http://www.caer.uky.edu/kyasheducation/whathappens.shtml+++U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Energy Recovery from Waste. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/wte/

Waste-To-Energy Power Plants. (2013, August). Retrieved fromhttp://www.mgmec.com/documents/WTE.pdfWaste-to-energy power plant in finland. (2014). MENA Report, Retrieved fromhttp://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1613334741?accountid=13631Whitney, M. (2007). Ontario's waste management challenge is incineration an option? Toronto,Ont.: Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy = L'institut canadien du droitet de la politique de l'environnement.22