Let the sun shine in...

probe

(This article appeared recently in BusinessWeek magazine)

Let the Sun Shine In

Too much energy is wasted by converting it. We could cut energy use by as much as 30% in 10 years by removing some links from the energy chain

by Greg Blonder
Technology

Sometimes the best solutions to the energy crisis are the simplest, and often they're right in front of our eyes. Consider the use of solar power to light a home. Even the most advanced photovoltaic solar panels convert just 20% of the available sunlight to electricity. The resulting direct current (DC) then must undergo conversion to alternating current (AC), losing another 20%. If that AC goes on to light an incandescent bulb, which is only 5% efficient, you end up using a fraction of 1% of the original sunlight as room light. (Even switching to compact florescent bulbs, which are 15% efficient, makes little difference in overall energy efficiency.) But if you were to simply leave sunlight as light—via proper skylights, window orientation, and louvers—nearly 80% of the light ends up as illumination.

Or take the multiple conversions required to produce alternative biofuels. The efficiency of converting sunlight into plants such as corn and switch grass and then into ethanol or biodiesel is one-tenth of 1%, or less. Algae looks like it will perform slightly better, but at these rates, why bother? The best way to convert plants to energy, frankly, is to eat them.

How to Cut Down on Energy Loss Conversions

The more links we put in the energy conversion chain, the greater the losses and the more improbable and inappropriate the solution. We need, wherever possible, to keep light as light and heat as heat and food as food. And as much as we enjoy endlessly debating which approach to take, the best solutions may very well be those closest to home.

Fortunately, a number of such straightforward solutions are emerging.

We could begin by siting new buildings for optimal exposure to sunlight and properly designing them to best capture daylight via skylights and windows. Though still a rarity in the U.S., such design practice has become much more common in Europe. With proper insulation, such structures also require very little energy to heat.

Similarly, we could install heat exchangers—simple, low tech devices that operate with 90% efficiency—much more widely. Office building architects, for example, increasingly use heat exchangers to help separate sources of heat and cold, thus eliminating double heating and cooling. Banks of server computers, now routinely walled off from office space, use heat exchangers to transfer the hot air they generate out of the building during summer and into the building during winter. Less-expensive versions for the home can do the same for refrigerators or stoves (why use electric energy to cool food when the outside temperature is 30 degrees Fahrenheit?) and hot water generated for showers (why lose all that heat down the drain?).

Even if you can't avoid mulitiple conversions entirely, there are ways to minimize the number of conversions. For example, we could also find more opportunities to break the DC/AC conversion cycle. Refrigerators and other appliances that operate on DC are becoming available and, with the certain arrival of economical LED lighting, which operates on DC, direct DC solar-power-to-DC-end-use shortly will become much more practical.
Community-Based Solutions

Of course, many such innovations lend themselves best to new structures. But even older homes in shady neighborhoods, where solar power is impractical, could reduce their energy consumption through more efficient, community-based solutions. We could put solar thermal collectors in open parks or even in the hot tar of streets, then distribute the hot water via pipes to the surrounding neighborhood. Heat would stay heat.

As some European towns already do, we could build community windmills and distribute energy locally, avoiding the energy losses associated with high-voltage transmission lines. Both solar and wind energy-collection systems operate most efficiently on a slightly larger scale than that used by individual homes. (Such off-the-grid, locally based energy solutions offer the added advantage of making communities less vulnerable to terrorist attacks on centralized power networks.)
Keep Plugging at the Electric Car

Applying the doctrine of minimizing energy conversions to automobiles is more problematic, but still doable. Going from sunlight to biofuels to mechanical engines to hybrid electric is a non-starter. Staying all-electric is the answer, but the main problem lies in battery technology, which has yet to see a breakthrough. Over the last 100 years, battery improvement has invariably tracked the same, slowly increasing, logarithmic curve. Even proposed battery advances using nanoparticles would just keep the rate of improvement on the same pace. It's simply too hard to jump-start the chemical processes inherent in battery technology.

Still, battery-operated cars are just a factor of two or three away from attaining the range and horsepower required to become popular with consumers. By substituting lightweight composite materials for steel and by installing the latest-generation electric motors, we could effectively close the gap. All are readily available. Then it would just be a matter of plugging our car into solar-generated power and we'd be off, as it were, to the races.

With rare exceptions, energy security and an improved environment don't generally require startling leaps in new technology. Nor do they require massive deprivation through conservation or insurmountable acts of political will. They do require, however, a clear focus on what works most simply and directly. Fewer energy conversions should become our watchword, whether we're government policymakers or whether we're investors.

If we were to apply that principle more broadly, we could make a huge difference in the U.S.'s energy consumption. Avoiding unnecessary conversions alone would enable us to cut energy use by as much as 30% in 10 years and eliminate our dependence on uncertain petroleum imports. Sometimes you can actually do more by doing less.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2007/tc20070731_540634.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology

One could add to this:

1) Stop giving planning permission to sick office buildings with tinted glass that require the lights to be left on all day, slowing office workers brains down in the process, (due to confining them for long periods without exposure to full spectrum light – which is essential for proper brain functioning). Prime example Bord Gáis headquarters in Cork. Heavily tinted glass was designed for skyscrapers standing in the Texas sunshine. It has no place in Northern Europe.

2) Stop putting recyclable waste on a slow boat to China, and convert the non physically recyclable element directly into useful energy via CHP (combined heat and power) systems in urban areas to benefit the Irish economy rather than the Chinese economy.

3) Install south-facing conservatories where space permits - they can provide substantial amounts of heat and light to a residential or other building in an open-plan set-up. They are also ideal in a second home to keep it aired - as an alternative to leaving the central heating running while the house is unoccupied in winter.

.probe

CJhaughey

Nice idea, In practice we had problems with the planner even allowing us to have a 2ft overhang, we have big triple glazed south facing windows and need the overhang to prevent overheating in summer (not this one!) the planner hummed and hawed and finally granted a 6" overhang.
Pure intelligence on their part wouldn't you say?
Planners don't plan they react.

maniac101

probe wrote:

2) Stop putting recyclable waste on a slow boat to China, and convert the non physically recyclable element directly into useful energy via CHP (combined heat and power) systems in urban areas to benefit the Irish economy rather than the Chinese economy.probe

Aaahh...............an incinerator!!!!
Why pussyfoot around probe?;)

probe

maniac101 wrote:

Aaahh...............an incinerator!!!!
Why pussyfoot around probe?;)

Yes! I live within 1 km of an incinerator. It provides all the domestic energy I use. If I had to move (don't want to), I'd get another place within its coverage footprint.

The stuff they burn is carefully controlled. The scrubbing of the emissions (by passing smoke/gasses through water tanks) and the filtration process generally is much cleaner compared with using a domestic wood pellet boiler - where PM10s among other things are released.

I would draw the line between incineration of community waste and wood in an urban setting as a means of waste and energy management, and incineration of complex chemicals and pharmaceutical products where the emissions cocktail is less of a known quantity. They have been incinerating empty Vittel PET bottles and similar domestic waste for decades in urban settings without a problem. Pharma waste is at the bleeding edge of technology.

.probe

maniac101

OP, You post an article promoting reduction of unnecessary energy conversion, and then you append it with your own unrelated contribution about why we should build incinerators! Your views on incinerators completely contradict the article you posted. Incinerators ARE an unnecessary conversion of energy. To avoid the unnecessary energy conversion in waste management, you reduce or reuse waste, you don't burn it! If waste had been addressed in the article, this would no doubt have been the message. As the article says: 'Sometimes you can actually do more by doing less.'

probe wrote:

Yes! I live within 1 km of an incinerator. It provides all the domestic energy I use. If I had to move (don't want to), I'd get another place within its coverage footprint.

I don't understand why you would insist that your heat and electricity be supplied by an incinerator. An incinerator isn't the only model for district heating or CHP you know!

The stuff they burn is carefully controlled. The scrubbing of the emissions (by passing smoke/gasses through water tanks) and the filtration process generally is much cleaner compared with using a domestic wood pellet boiler - where PM10s among other things are released.

A comparison with a domestic wood pellet boiler is not appropriate, since it's not a case of one or the other.

I would draw the line between incineration of community waste and wood in an urban setting as a means of waste and energy management, and incineration of complex chemicals and pharmaceutical products where the emissions cocktail is less of a known quantity. They have been incinerating empty Vittel PET bottles and similar domestic waste for decades in urban settings without a problem.

An incinerator doesn't dispense with the need to recycle. Waste that can't be burnt or is difficult to burn must be removed and recycled anyway. Btw most waste wood produced in Ireland is already converted to energy in sawmills and in furniture factories. Burning of 'Vittel PET bottles' is the worst use of the material. Recycling PET is relatively simple and more environmentally sustainable.

Pharma waste is at the bleeding edge of technology.

Uugh? What does that mean?

luckat

The brother lives 6km from a famous ultra-modern incinerator, with a forest between his place and it, and it's down a steep hill. But when the wind blows the right way, the sulphuric fumes give me horrifying asthma when I'm visiting him.

However, the OP's points about siting houses for good sun use are good sense - in fact, if you read folkways books you'll find that all houses in Ireland were traditionally alighned southeast-northwest (isn't it?) to get the best use of sun in morning and evening.

A common thing when I was a child was for people with those long low farmhouses to build a 10- or 12-foot-deep lean-to glasshouse against the sunny front of the house, extending the house in summer, acting as a greenhouse and keeping in heat in winter.

probe

maniac101 wrote:

Incinerators ARE an unnecessary conversion of energy.

I am simply comparing the incineration option with what is happening in Ireland (and GB) at present where most “dry recyclables” are being shipped to China – and where many of the recyclables are being landfilled because, for example, they are food stained. This exporting operation is totally unsustainable and involves the consumption of zillions of kW of energy in handling and transport.

I don't understand why you would insist that your heat and electricity be supplied by an incinerator.

I don’t insist that my heat or electricity is supplied by an incinerator! The production of heat is the least of my worries!

1) Neither I nor my neighbours have noisy air conditioning because we all get our cold air from heat exchangers. As a result one can sleep at night in total silence in a comfortable environment, and I don’t have the big electricity bills that the equivalent 15 kWh air conditioning system would run up.

2) My hot water is always on (like a hotel room) without any water heating system to maintain.

3) My electricity costs under 10c per kWh, and there is almost no transmission loss in the short distance it travels from point of generation to point of consumption.

The biggest benefit for me is silence and the fact that it is a managed service.

In any event incineration is only part of the energy solution in my area - much of the energy delivered comes from hydrothermal heat pumps using sea water.

A comparison with a domestic wood pellet boiler is not appropriate, since it's not a case of one or the other.

It is no more or less appropriate than a comparison with any other heating system. They all produce some level of pollution – even a windmill powering storage heaters.

Properly managed incineration is the cleanest method of combustion because it operates at far higher temperatures than can be achieved in a domestic appliance, and it is economic to put the necessary infrastructure in place to scrub pollutants out of any potential emissions.

An incinerator doesn't dispense with the need to recycle. Waste that can't be burnt or is difficult to burn must be removed and recycled anyway.

Anything that can be physically recycled is recycled in our system. Even champagne and wine bottle corks have a separate waste flow and are sold off with the funds going to medical research. When people know this, they are happy to go to the trouble of micro-separation of their waste where required.

However most domestic waste is packaging which is either made from timber or oil. It is only natural that it ends up being converted into energy at some stage in its life cycle.

Uugh? What does that mean?

Many chamicals and pharmaceutical products are new and the full risks associated with incinerating them either alone or with other chemicals may not be known.

.probe

probe

luckat wrote:

The brother lives 6km from a famous ultra-modern incinerator, with a forest between his place and it, and it's down a steep hill. But when the wind blows the right way, the sulphuric fumes give me horrifying asthma when I'm visiting him.

Must be some third world country! There is no excuse for an incinerator giving off sulphuric fumes - they can be and are removed in the scrubbing process in an efficiently run facility.

One wonders what they are burning to give off these fumes ? It can't be domestic waste or clean timber.

.probe

maniac101

probe wrote:

I am simply comparing the incineration option with what is happening in Ireland (and GB) at present where most “dry recyclables” are being shipped to China – and where many of the recyclables are being landfilled because, for example, they are food stained. This exporting operation is totally unsustainable and involves the consumption of zillions of kW of energy in handling and transport.

Firstly Probe, Watch that font size- it's completely unnecessary and very difficult to read. Using large font is the message board equivalent to shouting :mad:, which isn't very polite!! Like shouting, it may make you feel better but it won't help others see your point of view.

I'm not going to discuss the pros and cons of incineration with you in this thread (and there are both pros AND cons), as it's not in the spirit of the 'Business Week' article that you originally posted. I'm simply pointing out to you that by advocating the use of incinerators for domestic waste you're completely contradicting the article's simple message, that we should avoid unnecessary energy conversions. To repeat myself, avoiding unnecessary energy conversions in the treatment of waste involves reducing waste, not burning it.

If you want to sing the praises of incinerators, I suggest you open a thread with a relevant title.

probe

maniac101 wrote:

I'm simply pointing out to you that by advocating the use of incinerators for domestic waste you're completely contradicting the article's simple message, that we should avoid unnecessary energy conversions.

Combined heat/power/cooling using household waste material and heat pumps is appropriate in the context of minimising conversion losses. If I didn't get my air conditioning, hot water, and heating from the thermal treatment of my otherwise non-recyclable waste, I would probably have to use electricity for hot water, and would have to use a lot of electricity for air conditioning. While the location is in the fortunate position of also having lots of hydroelectric power (as well as incinerator generated electricity) - in the Irish context most electricity is generated by gas or coal. This process of generating electricity from gas or coal incurs huge energy conversion penalties. A modern coal to electricity plant converts about 45% of the energy in the coal into electricity. A new generation combined-cycle gas turbine generator has a conversion loss of about 40%.

Transporting coal from Australia (or wherever) consumes large amounts of oil. So perhaps only 40% of the net energy value of the coal is converted into electricity. Another 5 to 10% is lost in the national grid.

As an alternative, I'm suggesting that non-recyclable domestic and similar waste is converted into energy - in the form of hot water, chilled water and electricity for residential and commercial use. Most people have running water and don't have to resort to a well for their water supply. In my case the utility company also supplies hot water and chilled water, and takes our domestic waste away through a system of vacuum pipes - not dissimilar to a sewer pipe. Centralised production, maximises energy efficiency, using stuff that might otherwise be land-filled or exported to China. Turning the waste into hot water saves probably 30% of the energy value that would be lost if it was converted into electricity, and then into hot water or air con. The value of the electricity generated by the system is leveraged by using it to power hydro-thermal heat pumps which process cold water or warm water from the sea.

It is part of a well thought through integrated holistic system that could be adopted in many other places including Ireland.

This process should not be confused with the incineration of industrial waste, which in my view is not appropriate in an urban area. The emissions from this process are at least as clean as the emissions from a natural gas central heating system.

.probe

maniac101

probe wrote:

Combined heat/power/cooling using household waste material and heat pumps is appropriate in the context of minimising conversion losses.

Heat pumps??? I don't remember saying anything about heat pumps. Yes, a heat pump is an example of avoiding unnecessary energy conversion, but an incinerator certainly isn't.

If I didn't get my air conditioning, hot water, and heating from the thermal treatment of my otherwise non-recyclable waste, I would probably have to use electricity for hot water, and would have to use a lot of electricity for air conditioning.

Any CHP system will deliver heat and electricity for a district. You don't have to burn waste to operate a CHP. A CHP system that burns biomass for instance could provide the same heat and electricity. You're confusing the advantages of a CHP system and district heating with the advantages of an incinerator. Incinerators are built to dispose of waste, not to generate energy. The energy by-product is simply an additional revenue stream.

While the location is in the fortunate position of also having lots of hydroelectric power (as well as incinerator generated electricity) - in the Irish context most electricity is generated by gas or coal.

Incinerating our waste wont change this situation one bit, whereas investing in renewable technologies instead might in the long term.

This process of generating electricity from gas or coal incurs huge energy conversion penalties. A modern coal to electricity plant converts about 45% of the energy in the coal into electricity.

This is determined by the heat engine and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and not by the fact that we're burning coal instead of rubbish! The same laws and similar conversion losses apply to burning waste. This really proves the point I made earlier that incineration of waste is an unnecessary energy conversion.

A new generation combined-cycle gas turbine generator has a conversion loss of about 40%.

A modern CCGT plant has an operational efficiency of 56%. A CHP on the other hand can reach an efficiency of 75%, assuming you've a demand for all of the heat generated all year round. But again you're missing the point here. A CHP can operate more efficiently when burning biomass (or gas for that matter) than when burning waste.

Transporting coal from Australia (or wherever) consumes large amounts of oil. So perhaps only 40% of the net energy value of the coal is converted into electricity. Another 5 to 10% is lost in the national grid.

As above, if you think that incineration is going to provide an alternative you're only fooling yourself.

As an alternative, I'm suggesting that non-recyclable domestic and similar waste is converted into energy - in the form of hot water, chilled water and electricity for residential and commercial use.

No, that's not what you're suggesting at all. Earlier you mentioned 'Vittel PET bottles' as an example of the kinds 'non-recyclable' waste could be burnt. PET is in fact fully recycleable. This typifies the mindset that pervades when people become accustomed to having their waste incinerated. Everything combustible becomes 'non-recyclable' and efforts to reduce waste go out the window.

Historically, we've a poor record of waste reduction in Ireland. However I'm glad to say that the focus of waste policy in Ireland will in future be on waste reduction and not on waste incineration. For instance, your waste PET bottles could be avoided in Ireland by using glass bottles instead. (In fact, the necessity for bottled water could be reduced by providing clean tap water in the first place- but don't get me started on that topic!).

bonkey

maniac101 wrote:

I'm simply pointing out to you that by advocating the use of incinerators for domestic waste you're completely contradicting the article's simple message, that we should avoid unnecessary energy conversions.

Yes and no.

An incinerator would allow us to reduce the amount of unnecessary energy conversion we currently engage in.

In an ideal world, we'd produce no waste and tehrefore have no need to worry about how to efficiently deal with any of it.

We're not in an ideal world, nor close to being in one.

So the question we should ask ourselves is what do we do today, to get where we want to go. We (obviously) should start cutting down on waste, particularly of the non-recyclable nature. However, its not just a switch we can flick. We can't just say "lets stop producing waste" and its gone. Rather, its going to take years...probably decades.

So what do we do in that interim timeframe? In that interim timeframe, the production of waste is a given. So the "unncessary energy conversion" argument only applies to the disposal of it. In such a timeframe, incinerators do offer an avenue of efficiency.

To repeat myself, avoiding unnecessary energy conversions in the treatment of waste involves reducing waste, not burning it.

But reduction of waste takes time and inherent in the very description is an admission that its not a complete cessation of waste generation. You're still left - at all stages in the timeline - with the question of what to do with the waste you haven't cut out.

This really proves the point I made earlier that incineration of waste is an unnecessary energy conversion.

Once the waste has been produced, then its not an unnecessary conversion. Its only an unnecessary conversion to produce-then-incinerate in comparison to don't-produce-in-the-first-place.

probe

If we focus on the net point(s): Of course you can have a district heating and cooling system fuelled by any energy source. Whatever fuel you use – including waste – it will lead to some pollution during the combustion process. However when you centralise the combustion process in one building, you can achieve the most efficient burn and put the necessary resources into scrubbing and monitoring gas emissions.

Next we come to the choice of fuel issue. Coal has to be imported over long distances (consuming energy) and is highly polluting when combusted, and expensive to thoroughly clean its emissions. Other established fuels have related issues in terms of price stability, stability of supply, and general availability in a particular area, as well as varying degrees of pollution.

Why use waste material as the fuel? We can be picky about what we choose to burn and remove anything from the waste flow that is viable for physical recycling or “super-polluting” to burn. We can supplement traditional waste with bio-fuel (eg wood) if it is available locally to keep the CHP show on the road. The alternative is to landfill the waste – which is not a good idea in terms of scarce land use, and its impact on the water table and environment generally. We can vitrify the slag from the incinerator, test it for radioactivity, toxicity etc. and bury it in lined landfill sites (it is very compact) or use it as a construction material (eg road building) or otherwise dispose of it responsibly.

I would argue that if Ireland can’t economically recycle certain waste, it would be better use of resources to convert it into energy than to have to pay someone to bring it to China or elsewhere. You would in effect be turning a net liability (the shipping cost to China etc) and the shipping energy wasted into an asset (the energy value of the waste used in situ in Ireland). Sending recyclables on the slow boat to China is not sustainable in the short, medium or long term.

The ESB station at Moneypoint runs on coal. While that coal could be imported from anywhere, let’s assume it is being imported from China. Ireland LLC is buying Chinese coal, and sending Irish energy to China free, gratis, in the form of recyclables because we can’t/won’t recycle it in Ireland. Because presumably Ireland LLC is irrationally “scared” to burn wood, plastic and food derivative waste in a modern CHP station – but yet has no problem burning heavily polluting coal in an energy wasteful manner, in a location where CHP wouldn’t work because it doesn’t have the population or planned community design to use it.

The big picture of energy conversion loss is greater in this context than the 2nd law of thermodynamics – because as I see it when you have one energy source on site, and you choose to get rid of it for no value, and replace it with an imported energy source that you have to pay for, plus transport costs, you are incurring a “conversion” loss in all sorts of ways. The marginal energy efficiency gain of fuelling a CHP plant with oil or gas compared with waste is irrelevant in the context.

If you decide to keep PET bottles out of the incineration process, and have access to a physical recycling system that can turn the used PET into polyester, carpets, clothing, or new PET bottles or anything else useful, by all means do that. However that option is not available in every geographic area, and there will always be residual items that can’t be physically recycled for economic or other reasons.

Finally on the topic of tap water, given that you brought it up, the water table would be cleaner if we didn’t have all the un-treated landfill and if energy extraction technologies were more widely deployed to deal with surplus animal waste, etc.

.probe

maniac101

bonkey wrote:

So the question we should ask ourselves is what do we do today, to get where we want to go. We (obviously) should start cutting down on waste, particularly of the non-recyclable nature. However, its not just a switch we can flick. We can't just say "lets stop producing waste" and its gone. Rather, its going to take years...probably decades.

Yes, a significant reduction in waste does take time. However, incinerators are built to last a lifetime, or at least 20 years, (the planning alone can take another decade). Incinerators are designed to operate at full capacity due to the very high temperatures needed to treat the dioxins. The burn rate must be maintained at the design level to optimise efficiency and minimise environmental impact of exhausts. If you build an incinerator that can burn the waste produced in a particular area, you're effectively committing to maintaining the production of waste in that area at its current level for the long term. Also, the primary revenue stream for an incinerator is the gate fee, not the energy sold. An incinerator whose waste intake reduces by 30% over 5 years due to waste reduction policies for example, would go out of business. Building incinerators inhibits the reduction of waste.

So what do we do in that interim timeframe?

We sort the waste, remove recyclable materials, compost the organic component and bury the rest in managed landfill. Managed landfill can be exploited for biogas, which in turn can be fed into the gas network where it can be used for heating, cooking and electricity generation at energy conversion efficiencies that are an order of magnitude greater that the thermal efficiency of an incinerator. At the same time we can implement effective policies that encourage reduction of waste.

But reduction of waste takes time and inherent in the very description is an admission that its not a complete cessation of waste generation. You're still left - at all stages in the timeline - with the question of what to do with the waste you haven't cut out.

The same question has to be asked when you use incinerators. An incinerator doesn't dispense with the need for landfill. You still have to landfill all of the waste that you can't burn and all of the ash that the incinerator generates as a by-product of the combustion process. Burning the waste just reduces the volume of the landfill.

Once the waste has been produced, then its not an unnecessary conversion.

That's a bit like 'closing the stable door when the horse has bolted' and then defending the act of closing the door as a justifiable one, without addressing the issue of who left it open!

Its only an unnecessary conversion to produce-then-incinerate in comparison to don't-produce-in-the-first-place.

But the energy was wasted in the production of the waste in the first place. Also, even if the waste has already been produced, the heterogeneous nature of rubbish means that energy conversion in an incinerator is an extremely inefficient process. Only a small fraction of the energy inherent in the waste is actually converted into anything useful. Add to that energy loss the amount of energy consumed in the production of the waste materials originally and it's plain to see that the 'don't-produce-in-the-first-place approach' should be the focus of waste management and energy management policies.

Demonique

maniac101 wrote:

Firstly Probe, Watch that font size- it's completely unnecessary and very difficult to read. Using large font is the message board equivalent to shouting :mad:, which isn't very polite!! Like shouting, it may make you feel better but it won't help others see your point of view.

Hmmmm, I thought it was posting with the caps lock on that was considered shouting.

POSTING LIKE THIS I MEAN.

It could be worse you could get someone posting like this which I have seen on another board:

Oh My GoD, vIcToRiA bEcKhAm Is A sTuPiD aNoReXiC aTtEnTiOn SeEkInG cOw.

Ugh, why did she insist on posting like that? Was she trying to be cool or something? It didn't make her look cool it just made her look like an idiot

ircoha

Demonique wrote:

Hmmmm, I thought it was posting with the caps lock on that was considered shouting.

POSTING LIKE THIS I MEAN.

It could be worse you could get someone posting like this which I have seen on another board:

Oh My GoD, vIcToRiA bEcKhAm Is A sTuPiD aNoReXiC aTtEnTiOn SeEkInG cOw.

Ugh, why did she insist on posting like that? Was she trying to be cool or something? It didn't make her look cool it just made her look like an idiot

How do u know it was a she?

probe

maniac101 wrote:

Yes, a significant reduction in waste does take time. However, incinerators are built to last a lifetime, or at least 20 years, (the planning alone can take another decade). Incinerators are designed to operate at full capacity due to the very high temperatures needed to treat the dioxins. The burn rate must be maintained at the design level to optimise efficiency and minimise environmental impact of exhausts. If you build an incinerator that can burn the waste produced in a particular area, you're effectively committing to maintaining the production of waste in that area at its current level for the long term. Also, the primary revenue stream for an incinerator is the gate fee, not the energy sold. An incinerator whose waste intake reduces by 30% over 5 years due to waste reduction policies for example, would go out of business. Building incinerators inhibits the reduction of waste.

Incinerators that aren’t fed chlorine (cl) compounds (eg PVC, solvents, and pesticides with cl) do not have a dioxin production issue*. My local incinerator focuses on energy production – selling it as electricity, as well as hot and chilled water. It is deliberately situated in the middle of a dense urban area to give it a ready market for the energy with minimal transmission loss. Like any plant, an incinerator should be paid for what it produces and not what it consumes.

They maintain the burn rate by burning clean waste timber from the forest industry – which has to be bought. So one could look at it like a single wood burning stove for the entire commune, which also gets some non-physically recyclable rubbish fed into the system. Given the scale of the plant, it can be economically equipped with the resources to deal with any emissions generated by the combustion process.

The starting point for a project should not be “we’ve got all this waste to get rid of – we must burn some of it”. Rather it should be energy-driven – where one has housing units and commercial premises in an urbanization that need energy. The objective should be to provide that energy in the cleanest, cheapest, most sustainable and reliable way to the community. If it is beside the sea, one can often combine the combustion based solution with hydro-thermal heat pump systems so that the energy produced in the combustion process is leveraged using heat pump technologies.

The main way for dioxins to enter the human body is via the food chain – mainly via meat and dairy products.

The “wrongest” possible way to approach incineration is to put the incinerator out in the countryside (where there is no CHP market, and therefore no reason to spend money on timber to keep them operating at the required burn rate) – burning chlorinated waste in a location within a short range of fields with cattle grazing! The dumb British way of doing things, and soon to be the dumb Irish way too!

In Switzerland, 13% of the canton of Geneva's electricity (similar population to Co Cork) is produced by the Les Cheneviers incinerator** which also provides heat for 23,000 local residents saving 13,000 tonnes of fuel every year.

.probe

*http://www.things.org/~jym/greenpeace/incineration-cl-connection.html

**http://www.sig-ge.ch/corporate/l-entreprise-sig/notre-patrimoine/les-cheneviers/index.lbl

http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/HC270799/HDL/ENV/enven/vol336.htm

maniac101

probe wrote:

Like any plant, an incinerator should be paid for what it produces and not what it consumes.

You may not know this if you don't live here, but that's certainly not the case in Ireland. The viability of every proposed municipal waste incinerator here depends on the revenue from what they consume, and not what they produce. All proposed contracts for municipal waste incinerators include a 'Put or Pay' clause. This clause stipulates that the local authority must deliver a minimum amount of waste every year for the lifetime of the incinerator. Not doing so would mean that the local authority would incur financial penalties. The consequence of this is that there is absolutely no scope for a reduction in waste collected, and no incentive for the local authority to promote waste reduction. Municipal waste incinerators are run as businesses. It's all about Euros and cents, and Put or Pay clauses are meant to protect their (not inconsiderable) investments from the whims of environmentalists and future environmental policies that might act against them. My opposition to these projects should be seen in this light. Also, in the context of the extremely high gate fee paid for waste in this country the revenue from energy is completely insignificant.

They maintain the burn rate by burning clean waste timber from the forest industry – which has to be bought.

There's no scope in the Irish contracts for the replacement of waste with biomass. The local authorities don't mention it in their EIS's and have no incentive to do so. As mentioned before, most wood waste produced in Ireland is already converted to energy at source where it's used to power furniture factories and sawmills.

The “wrongest” possible way to approach incineration is to put the incinerator out in the countryside....
....
The dumb British way of doing things, and soon to be the dumb Irish way too!

'Soon to be'??? I’m afraid hat rubicon has been crossed in Ireland many years ago my friend! You don't seem to be aware that many hazardous waste incinerators already exist in this country and most are in rural areas (the closest one to me being just 2 miles from my doorstep in the beautiful rolling landscape of south Co. Cork!)

In Switzerland, 13% of the canton of Geneva's electricity (similar population to Co Cork) is produced by the Les Cheneviers incinerator** which also provides heat for 23,000 local residents saving 13,000 tonnes of fuel every year.

I've looked at the website that you posted. My French isn't what it once was, but can you tell me if the reference to 'dechets speciaux' is the equivalent of what we term hazardous waste in the EU? (You did say earlier that pharmaceutical waste shouldn't be incinerated!). Do you know what Switzerland does with its pharmaceutical waste? Just wondering.

probe

We are in danger of confusing two issues here.

One is hazardous waste treatment and disposal. The other is a holistic and sustainable approach to energy generation, in which the thermal treatment of certain types of waste has a role. I am very conscious of the way in which incineration is linked to hazardous waste in Ireland in peoples’ minds, and as a result we have a confused mush where rational decisions are not being made.

The treatment of “déchets dangereux” is outside the energy production cycle – the main purpose of the operation is to make safe / destroy hazardous substances, rather than to create energy. In most cases one suspects that hazardous waste incineration is a net consumer of energy given the ultra high temperatures that will be required – eg up to 1,000 C to destroy dioxins.

Most of Switzerland’s chemical/pharma industry is concentrated around Basel and for anyone interested in how the waste issue is dealt with, it is probably worth studying the Basel area. Unlike the European Union countries, the Swiss “Union” of 26 states (which has its origins back to 1291, the 1st of August to be precise) is about as totally democratic as one could get. The Swiss population controls what laws are passed in a system of devolved direct democracy. Nobody will get away with foisting a smelly, dioxin creating incinerator in anyone’s back yard in such an environment.

Moving back to the topic of getting the most energy value out of the resources we have, it is all part of the planning process. The creation of “new towns” provides greenfield situations in most cases where hot water can be supplied to consumers from a central plant in the same way as cold water – through insulated underground pipe systems. Bio mass and non-physically recyclable safe domestic and commercial waste can be combusted to create the energy required. Create a new town with green systems engineered into the plan and everyone participates in the process - not just one or two green householders who splash out 8,000€ on a green energy system for their home.

Land owners will grow more trees when they see a ready market for their output. The Irish climate is ideal for fast growing tree production. You don’t have to convert every community in the country into a CHP system overnight – you do it one at a time.

If the 400,000 odd people in Canton Geneva can get 13% of their electricity from their trash and provide heating for 23,000 inhabitants, the 4,000,000 odd people in Ireland have the potential to replace two electricity generating stations and provide district heating for over 200,000 people.

Instead of the totally stupid situation that we now have of exporting relatively clean to burn Irish “rubbish” and importing dirty to burn coal – which has to be paid for in more ways than one.

.probe

maniac101

probe wrote:

We are in danger of confusing two issues here.

One is hazardous waste treatment and disposal. The other is a holistic and sustainable approach to energy generation, in which the thermal treatment of certain types of waste has a role.

You brought up the issue of hazardous waste, no one else did! On the one hand, you 'rule out' the burning of pharmaceutical waste and on the other you post a link to a description of an incinerator that burns pharmaceutical waste, and you present it as a model for incineration in Ireland. I note that you're still avoiding the question of what to do with Ireland's pharmaceutical waste, - given that you've ruled out the current Irish practice of burning it!

I am very conscious of the way in which incineration is linked to hazardous waste in Ireland in peoples’ minds, and as a result we have a confused mush where rational decisions are not being made.

No. It's not a link in people's minds. It's the reality. We have many hazardous waste incinerators in Ireland! If you don't believe me check it out at www.epa.ie (Ireland's Environmental Protection Agengy). But unlike you, I don't have any great problem with incinerating pharmaceutical waste under license. What you're proposing to do with this waste is unclear.

In most cases one suspects that hazardous waste incineration is a net consumer of energy given the ultra high temperatures that will be required – eg up to 1,000 C to destroy dioxins.

There's no need to suspect it - it's true. Hazardous waste incineration is not about harnessing energy, it's about getting rid of the waste. Municipal waste incineration is also not about harnessing energy, it's about reducing landfill volumes.

Most of Switzerland’s chemical/pharma industry is concentrated around Basel and for anyone interested in how the waste issue is dealt with, it is probably worth studying the Basel area.

No need to! I note that the swiss environment ministry (OFEV) shows that incineration is the most common method of dealing with hazardous waste, and they're not above exporting it either! Your earlier posts would indicate that you wouldn't approve of these swiss practices.

Nobody will get away with foisting a smelly, dioxin creating incinerator in anyone’s back yard in such an environment.

You're the only poster in this thread who has expressed concerns about dioxins. Personally, I believe the risk from dioxins is present but manageable. My objection to municipal waste incinerators is not that they release dioxins but that they prevent a reduction of waste created in a community, as explained earlier. Please read my earlier posts.

Ireland's waste management policies should (and will in future) focus on waste reduction, not on waste incineration.

probe

maniac101 wrote:

You brought up the issue of hazardous waste, no one else did!

This thread is about extracting the maximum useful energy value from the energy resources we handle. It is not about toxic waste incineration in Cork or anywhere else.

I am simply attempting to show that a properly managed HWIP (household waste incineration plant) of non-chlorine containing materials poses no dioxin risk, and that it is cleaner, cheaper safer and more energy efficient to burn biomass and waste in a single CHP facility (in for example a community of 1,000 households – rather than each of them running their own individual wood burning stoves (or indeed any other form of hydrocarbon burning heating system).

For every 1,000 households with their own boiler systems, each of them is probably keeping at least 100 litres of hot water in a tank just in case someone wants a shower or bath or hot water in a tap at a moment’s notice. That’s 100,000 litres of hot water having to be constantly kept at say 60C all the time…. Just in case… What a waste of energy!

As an alternative, if the community of 1,000 residences shared a managed hot water service using a CHP system, they would still enjoy hot water on demand 24/24h, but the central system wouldn’t have to keep 100,000 litres of water hot “bubbling” away on hold. Chances are the system would be steam based, where steam is injected into a mains cold water feed to heat it up on demand. This is a far cleaner and more hygienic method than storing tanks of hot water which get dirty over time.

While it is counter-productive to nitpick, if you look back in the thread, it is you who introduced dioxins into the thread in your posting # 14 (14.08.2007)…

I agree that hazardous waste incineration is not about “harnessing energy” in the sense of creating heat, electricity or air conditioning for a community – it is a huge sucker of energy and those who produce this waste should pay for the full cost of treating same. If hazardous waste is thrown into a HWIP plant, the community who feed the HWIP with clean household “rubbish” are subsidising the toxic waste producer by allowing their energy source raw materials to be wasted to create the ultra-high temperatures needed to deal with the hazard. Not to mention the health risks the community is running because an HWIP is not designed or geared to deal with hazardous substances. In the same way as if one has a household waste physical recycling facility which can take bottles, clothes, paper, cardboard, domestic electrical appliances, etc. One doesn’t expect to be able to drive up with a truck load of spent uranium from a nuclear power plant or a tanker of used sulphuric acid from an oil refinery and demand that they take this “rubbish” too.

I sought to remove the issue of destroying toxic waste by incineration from the HWIP / CHP issue – because they are completely separate and largely incompatible applications. The incinerator that supplies my apartment with energy is run by an energy company – not a waste disposal company. They sell electricity and gas. I get an electricity bill from them every 3 months (about 9c per kW – v – the 16c per kW many of you suckers pay the ESB). They don’t charge me for waste disposal and I don’t charge them for providing free raw material. The physical recycling of waste which isn’t incinerated is done by a waste management company whose business is waste and cleaning. The waste management company grab the stuff they can recycle, and give the authorized safe to incinerate remains to the energy company for incineration.

I’m not trying to dodge the issue of toxic waste disposal – it is simply not part of this thread. Unlike Ireland, Switzerland is a free sovereign country and can export some of its toxic waste to specialist facilities, which is a far superior solution, as many toxic substances require specialist expertise and critical mass to make the operation viable and safe. I have no problem with this. There is no point in each country setting up its own specialist waste treatment plant. The EU fails to see the logic of applying the single market to toxic waste disposal, and tries to force every state to deal with all its own waste. The only waste exports I don’t agree with is energy laden clean household waste – which is essentially oil turned into plastics, trees turned into paper packaging, and food leftovers.

In the Swiss website you linked to, there are some interesting tables on energy production for Swiss household waste incineration plants. 40% of the energy in the waste is converted into usable energy – either CHP heat or electricity.

An annual total of 4,066 GWh of energy is produced by Swiss household waste incinerators – which is worth about €610 million annually at ESB retail prices! This is about 15% of Ireland’s total electricity requirement. http://www.bafu.admin.ch/abfall/01495/01496/index.html?lang=en&download=NHzLpZig7t,lnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1ae2IZn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCDeXt3gGym162dpYbUzd,Gpd6emK2Oz9aGodetmqaN19XI2IdvoaCVZ,s-.pdf [See the UIOM (Unité d'Incinération d'Ordures Ménagères) table on page 2]
Some 40% of the energy value of the waste material is being converted into energy. Switzerland has roughly twice the population of Ireland – so one could conservatively estimate that Ireland is wasting at least €300 million in energy by landfilling waste or exporting it to China. Anyone who has observed how green the Swiss supply chain is in terms of re-usable packaging and containers (have a look at the loading bay of a Migros supermarket – virtually everything comes in reusable plastic containers) and compared it with the container and packing waste that is so apparent in Ireland, one could assume that Ireland’s potential energy waste figure per capita is far higher than CH.

Certain elements of the Irish media and other parties have been allowed to get away with creating a cloak of I-FUD (ignorance, fear, uncertainty and doubt) about the entire topic of incineration. Every time someone’s natural gas or oil fuelled central heating boiler ignites, it is involved in an “incineration process”. Or when one throws a log on the fire, or uses wood pellets. It has been happening since man discovered fire.

The first choice in “disposing of” any item should be to physically recycle it. If that can’t be done economically, don’t throw it in a landfill so it leaches into the ground and water table, if it can be safely converted into energy. The toxic stuff the landfilled rubbish contains (eg heavy metals etc) ends up in the water table. At least in an incinerator, the toxic stuff is left in the ash – and the metals can be extracted and recovered from a relatively compact leftover product.

.probe

maniac101

probe wrote:

This thread is about extracting the maximum useful energy value from the energy resources we handle. It is not about toxic waste incineration in Cork or anywhere else.

No, it was originally about avoiding unnecessary energy conversions. You introduced the unrelated discussion about incinerators.

I am simply attempting to show that a properly managed HWIP (household waste incineration plant) of non-chlorine containing materials poses no dioxin risk,

Once again, nobody on this thread has expressed any concerns about dioxins!

and that it is cleaner, cheaper safer and more energy efficient to burn biomass and waste in a single CHP facility (in for example a community of 1,000 households – rather than each of them running their own individual wood burning stoves (or indeed any other form of hydrocarbon burning heating system).

You're confusing incinerators with CHP and district heating systems. District heating systems are indeed a good idea. However, the vast majority of district heating systems in Europe do not get their heat from incinerators. Equating district heating systems with incinerators is disingenuous.

While it is counter-productive to nitpick, if you look back in the thread, it is you who introduced dioxins into the thread in your posting # 14 (14.08.2007)…

Yes, it is counter-productive to nit-pick, especially when it's untrue. As I said, no-one has expressed concerns about dioxins in this thread, apart from your own concerns about burning pharmaceutical waste. Please reread the post that you pointed to.

I sought to remove the issue of destroying toxic waste by incineration from the HWIP / CHP issue –

Why then did you post a description of an swiss incinerator that burns hazardous waste and present it as a model for Ireland??? (fyi: most people promoting incinerators avoid using the word 'toxic'- that's the language of their opponents!)

Unlike Ireland, Switzerland is a free sovereign country

One for the politics forum perhaps:rolleyes:

The EU fails to see the logic of applying the single market to toxic waste disposal, and tries to force every state to deal with all its own waste.

So you're against incineration of pharmaceutical waste but you're in favour of exporting it. Hmmm.

40% of the energy in the waste is converted into usable energy – either CHP heat or electricity.

That's not good enough. You can save at least 10 times that amount of energy if you avoid the creation of the waste in the first place. As I explained before, once you put an incinerator in place for burning municipal waste, there is no scope for waste reduction. You're commiting to maintaining your waste at current levels for the long term.

probe

maniac101 wrote:

You can save at least 10 times that amount of energy if you avoid the creation of the waste in the first place.

Clearly you are so biased against the “incineration” word that no amount of logic will persuade you otherwise. I totally agree that prevention is the best cure – better not to create the waste than to burn it.

However we must be realistic and a society will produce waste no matter what. And not all of that waste will be physically/economically recyclable in every location. It is better to turn the element of non-physically recyclable waste that is safe to incinerate into energy. While turning waste into energy is 2nd priority recycling, it is a valid, safe and ethical solution and far better than landfilling it or sending it on the slow boat to China.

.probe

maniac101

probe wrote:

Clearly you are so biased against the “incineration” word that no amount of logic will persuade you otherwise.

Happily, it looks like I'm not the only one whos "biased" against incineration. The minister for the evironment, unlike his predecessor, recognises incineration for what it is: a form of waste disposal - not a form of energy recovery. Finally we've an environment minister who can see the bigger picture with regard to waste management and prevention. This week's statement effectively buries any new plans to build municipal waste incinerators in Ireland :

Mr John Gormley, TD, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government today (26 August 07) addressed the CoolEarth Fair at the Festival of World Cultures in Dún Laoghaire. The Minister was speaking on the themes of "Climate Change, Energy, and Nature", and he also spoke on the Government's waste policy and incineration, as well as climate change.

In highlighting Government policy on waste management the Minister said “that incineration is no longer the cornerstone of our waste management policy. This government has a different approach to waste management. We believe the waste hierarchy is paramount. Real emphasis has to be placed on reduction, reuse, and recycling first. Let us be clear: we do not see incineration or thermal treatment as a form of recovery, it is a form of disposal.”

“This government has also set out clearly in its programme a more sustainable approach to the financing of waste projects. So-called “put or pay” clauses, which guarantee a waste stream to incinerator firms are now out of the equation, as are waste permits(waster permits can be used to direct waste to certain types of facilities) which perform a similar unsustainable function,” added Minister Gormley

“This new approach will undoubtedly have an impact on planning. In the past we have seen An Bord Pleanála overruling the recommendations of its own inspectors on the basis that incineration was government policy. This is no longer the case. Good planning and the waste hierarchy must take precedence.” Concluded Minister Gormley

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/News/MainBody,15183,en.htm