This BLOG is devoted to create awareness on the state of waste management in Malaysia and what you and I can do about it. In my last two postings I made mention of the MASTER PLAN of Ministry of Housing and Local Government that will see the proliferation of landfills throughout the country. I also warned that it might be a possibility that a landfill may appear in our backyard. i also pointed out that whilst the developed countries are working towards ZERO LANDFILLS, we are encouraging more landfills. As such I made an appeal to our Members of Parliament and State Assemblymen to intervene. Perhaps they prefer to go at each other’s throats for their own protection rather than look into our interests. Again they conveniently forget that we elected them into office.
I often wonder what our politicians from both sides of the divide are up to. It is like Sarawak building dams upon damned dams and still there are no electricity power and piped water to the interiors. One disgusted “spiritual” buddy of mine volunteered this: The Bakum Dam is like a fully aroused penis with nowhere to unload its raging load!
Similarly, this seems to be the trend the Ministry is leading to: just dump! It is treatment of waste at its worst, with the focus of making money (aka cronies) not sense!
If nothing is done our country will be sinking under a tsunami of waste. With no effective government plan in sight (except to dump) it is left to you and me to act. As with so many other movements, lasting change often comes from the bottom up.
The goal of 'Zero Landfills' depends on ordinary people like you and me to lead by example and transition to a lifestyle that protects human health and the environment... a lifestyle that finally makes sense.
Zorro
ReplyDeletewhy are you posting shit ?
This is a symptom of a festering fatal malaise not the cause
Wake up and go back to where you belong - as Zorro
not shitbang before you too end up in the trashbin
Most of the waste that you see in landfills comes out of the estimated 5,000,000
ReplyDeletehomes in Malaysia. It is a headache for those so called
'waste management companies'
to handle effectively.
No matter how large a sum of nomey each of these companies are supplied with the nightmare is not going to go away.
We in the State of Penang are doing things differently. People here are being taught how to manage their own household waste and recycle.The results are becoming evident by the day. Soon we shall be talking 'O' waste. Our method is bottom up.
Don Anthony Theseira
Having less or even zero landfill would be nice. However, in reality, are we ready for it?
ReplyDeleteIt's great to talk about generating less waste. If we look at the situation objectively, Malaysians are not inclined at the moment to recycle due to lack of awareness, attitude or whatever reasons. The hue and cry in Selangor over the 'no plastic bag' policy, even if it's only for one day over the weekend, is a recent example.
At the moment, there is no effective means by the government to encourage or instill the recycling habit to the people. Our recycling rate is less that 5%, compared to over 50% in many developed countries. Even the Phillipines has a higher recycling rate, reportedly at 12%.
At this rate, we will need many, many more years before we even come close to actually reducing our waste to enable minimal requirement of any kind of waste disposal facilities, be it sanitary landfill or others.
Until then, we have to be realistic to accept that solid waste generation in Malaysia is likely to continue at a rate of 2% per year for many more years. The issue is how to tackle this effectively in terms of cost and other logistical concerns. Merely objecting to the building of sanitary landfills without understanding the rudiments is futile.
Sanitary landfill (not traditional open dumpsites that are often mistakenly associated with sanitary landfill) remains the most economical and effective method of managing our solid waste.
It's unfortunate that the traditional open dumpsites which are prevalent are often erroneously deemed and referred to as sanitary landfills.
A traditional open dumpsite is merely an open dumping ground, full stop. On the other hand, a proper sanitary landfill is a fully engineered facility, with modern technology and facilities to manage the waste and effluent, including effective landfill gas management and utilisation.
There are hundreds of traditional open dumpsites around. In contrast, the number of properly engineered and operated sanitary landfills in Malaysia can be countered on one hand. To be precise, there are probably only two that are worth mentioning: Bukit Tagar sanitary landfill in Selangor and Seelong landfill in Johor. The rest are traditional open dumpsites, or non-engineered/psuedo landfills masquerading as sanitary landfills.
The government has mulled the idea of an incinerator in Broga, but had to abandon the idea when the reality of the massive capital and operating costs required to develop and operate the facility sunk in. In 2003 or so, it would have cost RM1.5 billion to build the Broga incinerator with a lifespan of only 15 years, and a capacity to handle a few hundred tonnes of waste daily. After 15 years or so when its lifespan expires, a new incinerator will be required to replace the existing one, incurring billions of taxpayers money in capital cost again.
The tipping fee for the Broga incinerator was estimated at around RM150 for a tonne of waste, an amount far, far beyond the means of any municipal councils in the country, even DBKL (although DBKL is technically not a municipal council, the point is to highlight the cost impact).
The initial capital cost of fully engineered major sanitary landfill cost less than 8% of the cost of the Broga incinerator, and has a much larger operating capacity enabling thousands of tonnes of waste to be treated per day at a typical tipping fee of approximately 20% of the RM150 fee estimated for the Broga incinerator. Unlike Broga incinerator with a lifespan of 15 years, the Bukit Tagar sanitary landfill, for instance, has a lifespan of more tha 50 years.
The ideal situation would be less waste generation, and building less waste treatment facilities in any form. However, until we are able to achieve that, waste treatment facilities are still required. All things considered, under present circumstances, engineered sanitary landfill (not traditional open dumpsites) remains the most cost effective and efficient means of managing our solid waste.
The writer above assumes that there is no solution currently available in Malaysia. The solution is staring you in the face and that is the facility in Semenyih. So why can't the Government support and push this solution? The RDF plant is a Malaysian technological development jointly developed with MINT and as the Semenyih Plant has proven, workable and economical. Throw this to him/her. The life of a land fill can be extended by 10 times as only 10% of 100% Municipal waste is put in the landfill and what you put in the landfill is processed and inert.
ReplyDeleteMalaysians need to be educated and not blinkered by the powers that be that is answerable to the RAKYAT. As far as I am concerned, the masterplan by the Ministry of Housing on Municipal Waste is the BOLLOCKS. When developing Countriies are implementing zero landfill policies, Malaysia is doing the opposite. Makes me wonder who these so called experts giving the Government advice are.
Shalom
Shalom - I'm the writer of the article you commented. Yes, I'm are aware of the alternative facility you mentioned, and has in fact visited it. Unfortunately, the said facility is facing various technical problems, leading to a huge stockpile of waste at the premise. The operator is also facing financial issues as the business model that it's premised on is found to be challenging. Don't take my word for it, go there and see for yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, developoed countries are heading towards zero-landfill. However, Malaysia is NOT a developed country, and I've mentioned the factors that we are faced with at the moment and the requirements needed to achieve a condition where minimal waste disposal facility of any kind is required. It is also salient to note that no matter how developed a country, or the the extent of its recycling program, waste disposal facilities are still required simply because not everything are recycleable and disposal waste will be created. The qusetion is the type of waste disposal facility needed based on the socio-economic condition of the particular country.
I'm not saying sanitary landfill is the ONLY solution for Malaysia. There are many solutions available. But sanitary landfill offers the most cost-efficient and reliable method of solid waste management in Malaysia based on our socio-economic circumstances.
Dear Writer for sanitary landfill,
ReplyDeleteIt is Shalom here. On the issue of the Semenyih RDF plant, I too have visited the plant and in my opinion the hardware is sound. However, the operation and maintenance of the plant and general administration of the plant needs to be improved on. They are running the plant like a Country Club, with management from remote and the CEO not understanding the philosophy of the overall process. It is a bit like conducting an orchestra, every component of the process running in synch with one another.
The Business model is also sound. What they need is support from the powers that be to fine tune their model. They still need nearby landfill to dispose of their processed ash and inert material. The State Government have not acted on this till today. The Plant still have to dispose of their inerts which amount to 20% of Municipal Waste processed. If 100 Tonnes of MSW is processed, only 20% of it ends up as ash and inerts for disposal. It is still far better than burying raw waste.
I disagree that Sanitary Landfill is the most cost efficient. When you compare the economics of a Sanitary Landfill and that of the RDF Power Plant, the RDF Power Plant is the better and more economic option, without requiring CAPEX from the Rakyat's money. Furthermore, Sanitary Landfills have been proven to be not Sanitary from the experience of Developed Countries. There are many reports and data on this. The only reason why the Sanitary Landfill solution is being pushed is that the person behind this is in the Capex (about 400M) and the subsequent opex of close to RM 100,000/day. This will contribute a lot to the MCA/BN campaign fund.
I rest my case.
Shalom
Dear Shalom - I'm the writer of the sanitary landfill comments.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the RDF is a more economic option as it's developed without CAPEX from the rakyat's money. This is a fallacy as any CAPEX is included in the life-cycle cost in determining the tipping fee. Who pays the tipping fee at the end of the day? The rakyat of course.
In the RDF case, this is where the operator was too optimistic with their business model when they assumed a low tipping fee as they were confident the recycleables and renewable energy would sustain the project. It looked good on paper, but in reality the plan went awry due to the plant's shortcomings. As you said the RDF business model is sound, but,requires "support" from the power-that-be. "Support" from the power-that-be invariably means financial support that equals the rakyat's money.
The RDF (which is actually a technology from Bangalore, India, and not Malaysian) is not working well not because it's mismanaged as you mentioned, but simply because the plant is not sustainable. It's an open secret that a significant volume of untreated MSW from the plant is disposed to a nearby dumpsite, even from the early days due to the plant failing. It is also a fact that the Kajang Municipal Council is looking for alternative means to handle their MSW as the RDF is clearly not able to provide the solution.
I really don't know where you come out with the idea that a sanitary landfill runs on RM100,000 OPEX a day. This is definitely wrong. Based on your assertion, and assuming the landfill handles 1,000 tons of MSW a day, the cost per ton on OPEX alone (without CAPEX) is RM100, and we are not even talking about the tipping fee, merely cost. I shudder to think the tipping fee with CAPEX and profit margin. Do you seriously think the government would approve any sanitary landfill project with that type of cost/tipping fee?
If the MCA/BN lot wants contribution to their campaign funds as you put it, it can come from any source. Why point at sanitary landfill? Wasn't the RDF developed during the MCA/BN time in Selangor as well?
Dear Writer of Sanitary Landfill,
ReplyDeleteyou have not responded in the latest article, which was a comment by a reader rebutting your shallow argument. Your silence is deafening.
Shalom