JAN 26

A 2008 report from the UK's Waste and Resources Action Programme found that 6.7 million metric tons of food waste went into landfills each year, resulting in 8 million metric tons of CO2 being emitted. Supermarket chain Sainsbury's no longer wants to be a part of the problem. The company plans to become waste-free by the end of the year, largely by sending their food waste to a biomass plant.

The chain's 28 Scotland stores will send 42 metric tons of waste to a biomass plant outside of Glasgow every week. The company claims that each metric ton of waste can power 500 homes, meaning enough electricity could be produced to power a 50,000-person town. The Scotland stores will begin sending their unsold food this month, with the rest of the stores thoughout the UK joining in by the summer.

Beyond just unsold food, the chain plans to keep all of their waste out of landfills by the end of the year. So far, no specific plan for diverting the non-food waste has been announced.

Biomass tends to get a little less publicity than solar or wind, but it's been a rapidly growing piece of the renewable energy pie. Some parts of the world are better suited for solar than others, but all parts of the world produce waste. I love that a company like Sainsbury's has figured out that their waste could be put to good use. There are many other companies that could be contributing to biomass plants instead of landfills. Let's hope they catch on soon.

via Cleantech

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

28-store chain?
written by Rob Jessop, January 27, 2009

This is great news guys, but Sainsbury's isn't a 28-store chain, it has 785 stores, 28 of which are participating in this pilot scheme in Scotland. It is in fact, one of the 'big four' UK supermarkets along with Tesco, ASDA (Wal-Mart) and Morrisons.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Clinch, January 27, 2009

I think they should be looking at reducing the waste before changing how they dispose of it.
Studies have shown that most of the food they throw out is still edible with no negative health effects (freegans raid supermarket bins for food all the time).

• 
• +0
• 
• 

CO2 savings?
written by Ian E, January 27, 2009

Of course, reusing materials that are normally discarded is a great idea, but this won't save any CO2 emissions. Burning biomass releases the same CO2 that would have been released through decomposition (perhaps more). Yes, the vegetables have sequestered CO2, and yes, the energy could be carbon-neutral (depending on the carbon footprint of all the shipping/handling) but it's no better from a carbon-footprint standpoint than just letting them rot.

Proper composting, on the other had, will actually sequester the CO2 into the resulting soil, and that soil can be used to grow more plants.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

?
written by Amy, January 27, 2009

I thought that a lot of grocery stores donated their unsold food to foodbanks. So is this food waste only stuff that is unsuitable to donate?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Clinch, January 27, 2009

Yes it is a saving of CO2, because if you're burning foodwaste for energy instead of burning coal, then you only get the CO2 from the food, and not from the coal.
If you burn coal for energy, and just let the foodwaste rot, you get CO2 from both.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Grocery store worker
written by larry, January 27, 2009

The amount of waste in the average supermarket is disgusting.My store recycles all cardboard/paper, donates baked goods to the foodbank and organic material is separated for a compost program- and yet the waste we create would still shock the general public. Not to mention the water usage and the power consumption (all those coolers/freezers!). As for 'freegans' if that means dumpster divers- thats playing russian roulette,you never know what contaminate has come in contact with it (or what bacteria has grown on/in it)!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

M&S
written by cliffski, January 27, 2009

THis is nowhere near as comprehensive as Marks & Spencers *Plan A*. They are by far the best UK supermarket

• 
• +0
• 
• 

CO2 Savings
written by A Hurley, January 27, 2009

@ Ian E

When the food waste is dumped it will most likely decompose to methane and hence be a lot worse in its GHG contribution. Unless it is captured and flared back to CO2 - or better still burned in a landfill gas generating plant.

Composting may work though.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Eliminate the waste
written by Al Khemet, January 28, 2009

The amount of waste produced by very large supermarket chains is massive. A lot of this waste can be eliminated by better demand modeling and production scheduling.

As for using the waste to produce biofuels, surely it is better give the food to needy people since a large proportion of the waste food is perfectly fit for human consumption.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Re: Clinch
written by Herno, January 28, 2009

Exactly! Instead of having that much food being wasted, just project what you´re going to sell and leave the rest for other buyers (countries). But no, we have hungry people all over the world just so YOU (first world countries) can choose the apple you´re going to buy, it´s disgusting.
I know we still need to produce more food to feed the world but better distribution would help a lot!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Mr
written by John, January 29, 2009

One problem with this is how do you remove waste food from plastic packaging waste? Supermarkets use this plastic in all but loose food.

Plastic contaminated digestate is only fit for landfill. We need compostable packaging to use this biomass system.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Good start
written by Guillaume, January 31, 2009

I will echo some of the previous comments: Just 28?? Good start but what next?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

@ Mr et al
written by dialtone, February 04, 2009

all carbon based waste should be turned into oil by using the "Anything Into Oil" process - no landfills - all metals & glass recycled

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment