Michel Dutang ~ Full interview

Head of research at Veolia Environnement

1.  What are in your view the most urgent problems in the field of waste?

The main issue is that we have to industrialise the valorisation process of materials and energy. We have to transform the old technique of valorisation in industrial techniques. Globally, for instance, the rate of valorisation is 10 to 15 %, mainly because the cost of labour is high and the cost of metal is not high enough. So there must be fiscal incentives to help valorisation. The other point is that you need a lot of research about automation in the valorisation field, because if you want to have a very high rate of valorisation, you must transform all these plants that have manual separation of waste into automated plants. For example in the plant in Great-Britain, where they are able to sort out 100.000 ton waste per year with only 15 people. That is not completely automated, but it is a beginning. There is a lot of work still to do be done.

This development gives rise to the problem that you get a lot of secondary material on the market that has to be analyzed for toxics, like dioxin. These can cause health and safety problems. Therefore valorisation has to be automated scientifically.

2.  Can you give examples of materials that are important to valorise?

First organic matter can be used for compost. It has to be purified sufficiently and needs to be separated from the toxic and urban waste for instance. It is easy to make compost, it is quite difficult to make good compost. Therefore we developed x-rays to detect toxic waste in organic waste. The process is the same as is sued for your luggage at the airport, enabling us to produce good quality organic matter.

Furthermore we can sort materials like paper and plastic, but both quality and quantity are not so good.

Thirdly the path that is not well developed yet is for energy recovery; to produce secondary energy without producing for example dioxin.

If you can solve these issues, we do not have waste problems anymore.

3.  How much can we valorise when we apply these solutions?

I believe we can obtain 40 to 50% in about 10 years. The big problems at the moment are the capacity to sort the materials and detection to increase the capacity of valorisation.

4.  Can you name some necessary conditions for the solutions?

All waste management companies must develop these technologies, because in 10 or 20 years the prices of materials and energy will be very high. Governments must support these companies to reach their goals, for example by giving fiscal advantages for valorisation. In some countries this fiscal advantage already exists. We work in Southern Ireland where there is a high tax and therefore a lot of advantages for valorisation. So if the rates are high, it is easy to develop new plants and develop the technologies. You can compare it with the efficiency of car engines and the tax on cars in Europe. If the oil price increases, the companies will develop more efficient engines. So the efficiency of the engine in Europe is better than outside Europe. Governments need to change their fiscal policieas to avoid prices of materials and energy becoming very high.

5.  Are there any biotechnology solutions for the problems we just discussed?

In my opinion the future of the treatment of waste or, for instance water is a mix between biotechnological, physical and chemical solutions. Chemical and physical solutions are not sufficient , so biotechnology can be used additionally, for example to obtain high value materials from waste and to convert organic matter more efficiently. For instance for CO₂, the solution will be a physical solution with underground storage. Biotechnology will probably be too expensive to develop a solution for this problem. But if you want to transform a part of the organic matter into high value products, of course biotechnology will be very important.

6.  Do you see a difference between GMO and other biotechnological techniques?

It might be possible to use GMO in the field of waste, but at the moment we are not convinced of the added value. Furthermore, there is a lot of debate in Europe on GMOs. People are very concerned about new techniques of biotechnology. They don´t exactly know what GM is. Therefore we must demonstrate that working with biotechnology is no problem. We have to prove that GM is safe and that we can control the consequences. That way the debate will not get too big. So we have to put resources in research on the impact of biotechnology. If people will refuse to accept the technique, it will become very hard to convince them of the safety.

7.  Do you think these biotechnological solutions should be placed higher on the agenda?

Yes. For instance for energy recovery from biomass. We urgently need to get proof of principle of biotechnology by working in laboratories in order to resolve the public problem of the impact. And then you can put the products on the market. In France we had some field tests with GMOs, but these tests had to be stopped due to some problems and the public debate. So the first step is to make a study of the impact to demonstrate that it is safe. As with the nuclear plants it is possible to convince politicians and community to start this type of research. Furthermore we have to cooperate with NGOs before we put these products on the market.

8.  Do you think there are differences between developed and developing countries?

We have developed a lot of techniques in developed countries. These have been enrolled in developing countries. This process becomes quicker and quicker. If we now direct the developments specifically to solutions suitable for developing countries, I think that in 10 years time all countries, developed as well as developing , will have the resources to use the same techniques. But of course not all techniques are useful in all countries. For example gasification is not suitable in Africa, but you can work with purification.

9.  What will the field of waste look like in 20 years of time?

Currently waste is in the minds of people, because they have to separate waste. I think in 20 years time people have forgotten about the concept of waste, because all sorting will be completely automated and the waste will be collected underground. In countries like Switzerland, Spain and maybe France we can easily produce new products from waste. It will be the same situation for water.

Also the demands people have for waste management will be changed. At the moment waste management must be safe, cheap and clean. But in the future, people want more transparency for example for the rate of recovery and energy consumption. Waste management companies will be judged by their integration in sustainable development, by the public as well as in tenders.

10.  Do you have any other remarks that you like to add to this subject?

No not really. Of course in 5 years time our opinion will be changed. We have to re-analyse our strategy, but the big figures will be the same. I hope we will have new discoveries and technical developments that we cannot foresee now. As I told you I am not very convinced of the added value of biotechnology. Maybe in 5 years time biotechnology can demonstrate for instance that it can produce industrialized hydrogen from waste. Today that is a dream.