Lately, I've been thinking that landfill gas (e.g. methane) held the promise to power many homes and aid the environment at the same time. After all, it makes perfect sense that using this landfill gas for energy and preventing this potent greenhouse gas from rising into the atmosphere had to be a win-win situation. So, it would figure that I've been reading a few articles recently that call into doubt the notion that using landfills for energy is the way to go.

On the positive side, there are still many publications that note the benefits of using methane from landfills for energy. For one, methane has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide according to one article, which means using it for energy could definitely help combat global warming. In addition, there is evidence that converting methane into energy destroys most of its hazardous air pollutants (via combustion) and accordingly, using it can be of great benefit to public health. Further, if homes or companies can use methane for energy, they don't need to obtain energy from coal-fired power plants, eliminating the need for even more pollution. One major company that uses a landfill for energy is S.C. Johnson & Company, in Racine, Wisconsin. The company is particularly proud, as I think it should be, for using this energy source rather than coal-fired power plants, given that two new ones opened recently in Wisconsin.

Of course, there always seems to be a downside. The main concern is that landfill gas can contain minute quantities of dioxins. Dioxins can be very harmful even in very small amounts. I'm not clear on why the combustion process would eliminate most of the hazardous air pollutants but not the dioxins, when energy is generated from landfills. However, given the small quantities of dioxins that companies need to disclose in TRI reports, we need to be concerned about the tiny amounts that might emanate from the methane-making process. Another article I read recently mentioned that landfill gas contains more mercury than coal-fired power plants, yet I am still unclear on whether this can be captured before energy is produced. Given the health hazards of mercury, this is definitely a concern.

Some of the articles I have read focus on the subsidies for methane production as being a negative, because they discourage recycling. I guess the idea is that if landfills make money from converting garbage into energy--regardless of what the garbage contains--there will not be as much pressure on the landfills to extract items that can be recycled. Yet, when I saw the program on the Puente Hills landfill in southern California, the landfill spent considerable time taking out items that could be recycled. In addition, I think recycling is very poorly promoted and under-emphasized in most of the nation. Perhaps in certain states where people can still collect a refund for a bottle or can, recycling is big. However, in large cities and small towns across the country, people still toss many items that can be recycled into the trash without a second thought. In my mind, every restaurant, park, sidewalk, rest area, store, etc., should have recycling bins next to the trash can. Further, people should be required to recycle at home and should have to pay a premium to dispose of more than a certain number of trash bags per week. I don't see this recycling issue so much the responsibility of the waste handling companies, as I do the public in its day-to-day disposal of waste.

There is much more to learn with regard to the landfill gas issue apparently, before we can endorse it without any caveats. Nonetheless, it also seems premature to condemn this potential energy source at this time.