As with most advanced thermal treatment systems (such as this incineration-style option called pyrolysis) the article does not add any details as to the ultimate issues that affect the Ultimate Client – the Public at Large and the Bank-Roller of these “so-called” advanced thermal treatment systems.
The article hides:-
1] the costs to treat the waste.
and
2] the problems over emissions and toxiicity of the residual products discharged into air and ground. Bearing in mind that there are no such things as “zero emissions” in dry incineration processes (as pyrolysis is so regraded) that there will be toxic discharges as those Proscribed under the Stockholm Conventions for POPs and under the UNFCCC edicts for another tranche .

For costs to treat as we now know that within 4 years at the most there will be No Gate Fees to Treat Waste and that by the end of this decade Costs for buying Waste from municipal Sources are likely to be greater than $75-00/€65/£50-00 per tonne and that these will rise progressively thereafter to around $150/€130/£100 per tonne because the revenue streams derived from treating waste are already exorbitantly high [a waste to energies plant that treats 400,000 tonnes per year of post-reclaimed organic material which incurs a capital cost of less than $175/€150/£110 Million will deliver a Return on Investment of less than 4 years – in North Western Europe (and these are not incineration plants like the pyrolisis programme here we might add) there is no justification in business to build such a plant. Even Anaerobic Digestion plants using a modified and super-advanced accelerated digestion system which can effect total digestion with 48 hours, can develop a near equivalent ROI of just over 5 years.
The Public needs to know that that which is being portrayed here – incineration as pyrolysis is just not affordable and never was.
For the issues of toxic wastes then without a doubt the anaerobic digestion and similar processes that work within a freely wet arena are without a doubt streets ahead of these dry incineration style pyrolysis plants as there are no gaseous emissions and there are no toxic releases to the atmosphere – ever. With regards to the heinous claim that the residual char is free of toxins, that sounds to be far from real. Of course it will contain toxic products and these will be available and be able to be leached from any “burial place” no matter how they are intrerred. Thus the residues as claimed will need certifications and interring in specialised land fill style enclosed depositories for at least 200 years or until someone can clarify that the ionertness has been achieved.