Not letting it go waste

Waste-to-energy plants could sustainably dispose of municipal solid waste, while generating electricity

tightening of regulations with respect to emissions since the 1970s. The abundance of land in the US led to greater recourse to landfills. But incineration plants are making a comeback and with these, so is the need for vigilance on emissions.

The innovations in waste-to-energy technologies worldwide have been focusing on pyrolysis, gasification and plasma gasification, which can deliver cleaner emissions but are considerably more expensive. These technologies involve heating of solid waste at very high temperatures in an oxygen-controlled environment, such that the thermal reactions produce synthesis gas (or syngas) which has the advantage that it can be burned directly or transported through pipelines and/or tankers for use in electricity generation, refining, chemical and fertiliser industries. While syngas can be scrubbed and converted into a clean energy source, the technologies are expensive, compromising the commercial viability of plants based on conversion technologies.

A waste-to-energy plant based on pyrolysis-gasification technology was set up in Pune in 2012, but it has failed to deliver after repeated trials. It failed, not only because of the high cost of cleaning syngas, but also because of a number of technical snags, including the fact that it had overestimated the calorific value of the waste and underestimated the moisture content. The company now produces RDF using 300 tonnes of dry municipal waste per day — less than half of what was intended in the design of the original plant.

Pollution control boards set up by the government of India and state governments were expected to provide technical assistance and keep a check on the emissions/environmental footprints of waste-to-energy plants. Unfortunately, they have not kept pace with the rapidly evolving technology in the field of pollution control and were not able to check routine defaulters. Recognising the need for a more empowered body that could enforce adherence to environmental regulations, the National Green Tribunal was set up in 2010, as an independent judicial body under an act by the Parliament of India. As a judicial body in charge of supervisory jurisdiction over all environmental matters, NGT has, in many cases, prodded the pollution control authorities and C R Sasikumar

catalysed action from State Pollution Control Boards/municipalities, especially in waste management. It has been setting the rules of the game and putting the weight of legal compensation and enforcement behind its rulings. Hopefully, NGT will receive full support from the Central Pollution Control Board in its quest for scientific evaluations of the environmental impact of waste-to-energy plants.

The level of subsidy required to make waste-to-energy plants financially viable presents another set of problems. These plants involve significant capital investment and the cost of energy produced is higher than from the grid, unless there are government subsidies. Considering their contribution to resource recovery and saving on the energy cost of transportation, which would otherwise be incurred to haul waste to a landfill, there is a good case for subsidising these plants.

Municipal bodies give benefits to wasteto-energy plants, such as land for free or at token amounts plus a tipping fee for each tonne of waste processed. However, this does not suffice to make the cost of electricity produced from these plants competitive with conventional sources. The talk of waste to wealth in this context is misleading. A subsidy is still needed; a transparent method must be found to determine the maximum subsidy feasible through competitive bidding.

It is also important to emphasise that electricity generation from waste is not the most efficient way of generating electricity. It is a way of resource recovery from municipal solid waste and should be considered as a by-product of waste management. Enthusiasts sometimes speak of waste-toenergy as a solution to our energy problem — this is not correct. However, if implemented to global emission standards, it could be a pathway to scientific and sustainable disposal of municipal solid waste, given the scarcity of urban land in the country, while also generating some much needed electricity.

Ahluwalia is chairperson of ICRIER, Delhi, and former chairperson of the high-powered expert committee on urban infrastructure and services. Patel is research assistant at ICRIER WHAT IS the intellectual case for the political Right in India? This is a question that has been posed by many commentators who, discomfited by the rise of the BJP, have been inclined to dismiss the latter’s intellectual sympathisers as anti-poor, antidemocratic, religious chauvinists. I try to define what the centre-right — the New Right — would stand for.

An important anchor for the New Right is a strong belief that market-based economics is the most effective means for delivering economic growth commensurate with the expectations of our citizens. The New Right would, however, concede that market-based systems tend to accentuate disparities in income and wealth. They recognise that in a democracy such as ours — where we received universal suffrage at much lower levels of economic development than any other democracy in the world, and where the vast majority of voters live in poverty — it is especially difficult to make a politically compelling case for economic policies that favour growth over equality.

Demonstrating that market-based systems can be fair — that they can be compatible with the democratic quest for social justice — is therefore of vital importance. The ability to properly regulate markets and redistribute income effectively is essential, and forms the basis for the New Right’s views on the role of the state.

The New Right are not advocates for a minimalist state. Markets cannot substitute for the state. The state must enable entrepreneurship and private enterprise such that these become the primary engines of job creation. It cannot become the default provider of jobs for all that are disadvantaged; nor can it be allowed to become the fiefdom of a few cronies. The state must have robust regulatory capacity to keep markets competitive. It must be able to intervene for the public good where and when markets fail. It must have an administrative machinery capable of ensuring effective delivery of essential public goods to all citizens. And it must provide an adequate safety net, transparently, and efficiently, to those that fall behind. While subsidies and transfers should remain important instruments for redistribution, the state must surely pursue every opportunity to improve their design — such as by moving to a system of direct cash benefit transfers linked to Aadhaar-seeded bank accounts — in order that they target the deserving, while eliminating waste and corruption.

It takes a strong, well-functioning state to deliver fairness. A weak state is vulnerable to capture and profligacy. Without confidence in the state’s ability to address the excesses and limitations of markets, it would be very hard to mobilise mass support for liberal economic reforms. It follows that strengthening of state capacity is of utmost importance to the New Right.