This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
It is unfortunate that in his article on Navitus company's proposed "waste-to-energy" incinerator in Sandy ("Why hasn't Sandy collected 3 years of rent owed by waste-to-energy developer?," Tribune, Oct. 10), the author states as facts what are actually controversial claims by the industry. The first, appearing in the first sentence, is that burning residential waste is a "clean alternative source of power." Next is the line claiming that pyrolysis can "cook the city's waste, yielding synthetic natural gas ... all without emitting pollutants."
A for-profit energy facility that depends on ever-increasing volumes of waste feedstock, thus discouraging composting of organic waste and reduction of packaging and other household waste, can hardly be called a "clean alternative" (let alone a form of "caring for the environment" or "zero-waste", as asserted by a Navitus board member).
Furthermore, the claim of no pollution is hotly contested: Analyses of pyrolysis plants in other states have found that there are in fact toxic emissions, sometimes even more than in "conventional" waste incinerators. Waste-to-energy incinerators as "clean, pollution-free" sources of electricity are public relations claims of the industry, not facts. The author should have indicated this in his text.
Jonathan Jensen
Salt Lake City