Burn dont recycle - Say the Swedes!

mike65

http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html&R=http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/6647.cfm

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wrecyc02.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/02/ixworld.html

Jesus, just when you think you're "doing the right thing" (I recycle just about everything that can be) It turns out I'm wrong! And I get such a nice smug feeling when I visit the dump...

Mike.

azezil

Interesting, wounder if it'll get wide acclaim

As for burning organic materials/ paper etc. that makes sense but burning glass!? can glass be used as a fuel sourse??

Typedef

Humm.

Emotive is exactly the word I'd use to describe the notion that paper (and else) should be burnt, rather then recycled.

Seriously, there are nasty greenhouse gases released when you burn most things, not to mention the fact that the wastes of incinerators 'generally' are simply an exercise in land fill mass reduction since incinerated waste ostensibly goes to landfill.

Modern, incinerators are supposed to be 'safe', in the emissions that come from incineration, but, incinerators were supposed to be safe in the 1970s and were later derided as emitting too much harmful gases, so calling (modern) incineration 'safe' is fraught with the spectre of past falsehoods in this light.

Still, if I see a convincing argument for incineration as opposed to recycling, I might just go along with the notion, at least, I would keep an open mind vis-a-vis incineration.

Bottom line, this is me being sceptical.

Bod.

Victor

The problem is down to the random hazardous bits that end up in our rubbish - car oil (complex hydorcarbons, heavy metals), batteries (heavy metals), medicines (complex hydorcarbons) paint & houshold chemicals (complex hydrocarbons, chlorine) and the like that make the rubbish being incinerated go from a low level hazard to a high level hazard.

The problem with composting is it releases methane, which is a greater (per gram) contributor to the greenhouse gas problem than the comparable amount of C02 from an incinerator.

What is needed is greater reduction in use and separation from waste of hazardous products.

Keeks

Originally posted by Typedef
Emotive is exactly the word I'd use to describe the notion that paper (and else) should be burnt, rather then recycled.

Its hard to believe but actually makes sense when you take a long look at it. Does it really make sense to recycle paper. Is it actuallt better for the envioment. So what if it gets burned in an incinerator. Does burning paper make a difference to global warming?

I'm not going to answer that question, becasue I really don't have the answer. But waht I'll do is pose a few more to make u think of the subject.

How is paper recycled?
how much more processing does it take to recycle paper back into paper?
How many more chemicals are used in the process?
If I burn it how much more greenhouse gases will i contribute to the enviroment?

The thing most ppl forget is that burning paper does no damage to the envioment? (maybe the ink and other chemicals used to treat the paper do, i'm not sure). Why you ask.

Take a seed. It grows into a tree. The tree takes CO2 from the atmosphere. Converts it to O2. This cycles goes on for years. Tree dyes. It decays. This process taks O2 and turns it back into CO2. During its whole liftime a tree uses as much O2 as it produces. So by burning paper you are just completing the cycle. It will make no difference.

People have this notion that all burning is bad and its not so. The problem with burning lies with fossil fuels. When you burn fossil fuels you are releasing Co2 thats been stored away for millions of years. Thats when the problem lies.


A very simplistic way of looking at it

Snowball

I think that the whole problem need a large solution.

I think that a good combination of all of the above would be the better solution. If people recycle at home (internaly), by reusing what they could sent to waste (paper, bottles, cans, plastic, etc.).

We waste to much, we consume to much and we done reuse what we can.
If people did as much as they could to reduce the amount of waste they produced and the people who could grow their own vegetables and the like (basicly were more self-sustaining), used wind power or solar power and so on things would be a lot easier to manage. Poeple rely to much on the goverment to produce all and solve all.

Maybe incineration is a answer. I have been told of an incinerator in the center of Venus that produces less imitions daily than the total of the cites population do smoking or than the truck used to take the waste to the plant. Sound good but my concern is that burning does produce gasses, gasses that are bad for the enviroment, and my concern would be that if the plant is producing the gasses but not imiting them then they are being filterd out somewere. What happens to them when they are filterd. If it is possible to dispose, in a envoromentaly frendly manner, of the waste and the filterd gasses and chemicals produced by the incinaration plant than I am all for using it in a complicated and well though manner as part of an over all plan to manage waste.

Victor

Originally posted by Snowball
Maybe incineration is a answer. I have been told of an incinerator in the center of Venus that produces less imitions daily than the total of the cites population do smoking or than the truck used to take the waste to the plant. Sound good but my concern is that burning does produce gasses, gasses that are bad for the enviroment, and my concern would be that if the plant is producing the gasses but not imiting them then they are being filterd out somewere. What happens to them when they are filterd. If it is possible to dispose, in a envoromentaly frendly manner, of the waste and the filterd gasses and chemicals produced by the incinaration plant than I am all for using it in a complicated and well though manner as part of an over all plan to manage waste.

What on Earth (or Venus in this case) are you on about?

Leaving ordinary material (paper, cardboard, polythene, food waste) rot in your compost heap / municipal dump is more damaging than burning it as it produces methane which has a much higher greenhouse gas value than carbon dioxide.

Keeks

The thing ppl most fear about incenerators is not that it release gases that harm the enviroment but that they cause cancer clusters.

Drinking coffee will have a greater probabilty of giving you cancer than living next to an incinerator!

And its Vienna and not Venus. It is right smack in the middle of Vienna. Just like the Spike in Dublin. It has a very classy design and looks like an Art house or something. It has the biggest "Catalytic" converter in the world which purifies the exhaust fumes. The trucks that bring the waste to the incinerator are most harmful to the enviorment than the incinerators exhaust(and as far as I know they run on a Diesel/Biodiesl mix)

Incineration is the way forward, as long as they double as power stations and produce electricity.

Also like Victor stated here

The problem is down to the random hazardous bits that end up in our rubbish - car oil (complex hydorcarbons, heavy metals), batteries (heavy metals), medicines (complex hydorcarbons) paint & houshold chemicals (complex hydrocarbons, chlorine) and the like that make the rubbish being incinerated go from a low level hazard to a high level hazard.

What is needed is greater reduction in use and separation from waste of hazardous products. We need to find better ways of reusing/recycling/disposing of theses products.

akkadian

Typedef wrote: »

Humm.

Emotive is exactly the word I'd use to describe the notion that paper (and else) should be burnt, rather then recycled.

Seriously, there are nasty greenhouse gases released when you burn most things, not to mention the fact that the wastes of incinerators 'generally' are simply an exercise in land fill mass reduction since incinerated waste ostensibly goes to landfill.

Modern, incinerators are supposed to be 'safe', in the emissions that come from incineration, but, incinerators were supposed to be safe in the 1970s and were later derided as emitting too much harmful gases, so calling (modern) incineration 'safe' is fraught with the spectre of past falsehoods in this light.

Still, if I see a convincing argument for incineration as opposed to recycling, I might just go along with the notion, at least, I would keep an open mind vis-a-vis incineration.

Bottom line, this is me being sceptical.

Bod.

Re: @nasty gases..
These 'nasty gases' themselves can be harvested as a fuel to supply a plant with energy. This has been documented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtS6K43np9o

It's called thermal depolymerization. They failed in the 70's because it wasn't efficient.

Now, it's very efficient. It's the perfect replacement for the incinerator - totally closed loop - nothing is wasted, no, and I mean no... pollution.

The correct term 'biproduct' is a reality.

maniac101

mike65 wrote: »

http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html&R=http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/6647.cfm

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wrecyc02.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/02/ixworld.html

The links don't work for me, for some reason?

Victor wrote: »

The problem with composting is it releases methane, which is a greater (per gram) contributor to the greenhouse gas problem than the comparable amount of C02 from an incinerator.

Most of the materials used in composting are organic waste materials, i.e. food waste and garden waste. Because of their high water content they're unsuitable for burning in an incinerator. You have to use an excessively high amount of energy just to remove the water before you can burn the organic material. Operators of incinerators generally seek to reduce organic waste content.

Keeks wrote: »

Take a seed. It grows into a tree. The tree takes CO2 from the atmosphere. Converts it to O2. This cycles goes on for years. Tree dyes. It decays. This process taks O2 and turns it back into CO2. During its whole liftime a tree uses as much O2 as it produces. So by burning paper you are just completing the cycle. It will make no difference.

You've neglected the amount of energy and associated emissions involved in the manufacture, transport and disposal of the paper. This is higher than the amount released when burning it. Paper or any other manufactured product cannot be CO2-neutral or energy-neutral.

smellslikeshoes

maniac101 wrote: »

The links don't work for me, for some reason?

That's because this thread is a full 6 and a half years old

mike65

maniac101 wrote: »

The links don't work for me, for some reason?

They are nearly 7 years old.

maniac101

Keeks wrote: »

And its Vienna and not Venus. It is right smack in the middle of Vienna. Just like the Spike in Dublin. It has a very classy design and looks like an Art house or something. It has the biggest "Catalytic" converter in the world which purifies the exhaust fumes. The trucks that bring the waste to the incinerator are most harmful to the enviorment than the incinerators exhaust(and as far as I know they run on a Diesel/Biodiesl mix)

Incineration is the way forward,

The Irish do incinerators differently. The Irish model involves the operator of the incinerator putting in place a "put or pay" clause to protect his investment and remove his risk. This clause requires that the local authorities deliver a minimum amount of waste annually to the incinerator, thus guaranteeing the revenue. The difficulty with this is that it acts as a strong disincentive to local authorities to reduce waste or to recycle it.

as long as they double as power stations and produce electricity.

Most of the energy produced in "waste to energy" incinerators is in the form of heat rather than electricity. Europeans are adept as harnessing this heat in district heating systems. In the planned Poolbeg incinerator much is made of the energy that will be produced by the plant in the forms of both heat and electricity. This is completely disingenuous. The district heating infrastructure doesn't exist in south Dublin, and even the dogs in the street know that plans to build thousands of new homes and connect them to a new district heating system will never be realised in the lifetime of the incinerator.

maniac101

mike65 wrote: »

They are nearly 7 years old.

oops

/climbs back down off his soapbox

who the fug

I do not understand why with modern air scrubbers, we cannot have clean air from these incinerators and using the heat provided to create electricity

akkadian

who the fug wrote: »

I do not understand why with modern air scrubbers, we cannot have clean air from these incinerators and using the heat provided to create electricity

Re: @nasty gases..
These 'nasty gases' themselves can be harvested as a fuel to supply a plant with energy. This has been documented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtS6K43np9o

It's called thermal depolymerization. They failed in the 70's because it wasn't efficient.

Now, it's very efficient. It's the perfect replacement for the incinerator - totally closed loop - nothing is wasted, no, and I mean no... pollution.

The correct term 'biproduct' is a reality.

Gonzales

This is a chemical equation we are all talking about & like any other it must / will find balance to get to a stable state.

All the metals, plastics, woods, paper whatever we consume every day, come from the earth & will return to the earth. Nothing is coming from outer space.

The earth will find the balance, granted, we may/may not be killed in the process but that's what'll happen.
Simple as that.

End of story.

Capt'n Midnight

who the fug wrote: »

I do not understand why with modern air scrubbers, we cannot have clean air from these incinerators and using the heat provided to create electricity

A lot of waste is packaging, more specifically excess packaging who's main purpose is in marketing rather than protection

reducing this would result in less supertrucks too , but eventually it would reduce the fuel value of waste, less cardboard and paper , less hydrocarbons/plastics

are incenerators viable in the long term ?

Mike 1972

Keeks wrote: »

Does burning paper make a difference to global warming?

Is the heat from the incinerator being put to any use (Electricity generation/District heating/CHP) which would have otherwise required the use of fossil fuels

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Is the heat from the incinerator being put to any use (Electricity generation/District heating/CHP) which would have otherwise required the use of fossil fuels

I have recently modified a Stanley range by fitting a second heat exchanger in the exhaust void under the hotplate & flue connecter. I burn all the household rubbish and scrap wood collected locally.
I am also in the process of experimenting with Brickettes made from waste paper & cardboard (first batch still drying) the heat from the range is fed into the solar hot cylinder and suppliments the heating & hot water system, oil being the primary heat source.

Mahatma coat

they've been burnin rubbish for years at a few plants around the world, but even at a decent load of rubbishh being fed into it what eith economies of scale etc most of the fuel is still coal, incinerators arent as coola anymoer now either as thy have exhaust systems and stuff, so yer nor supposed to shoot flames out of the tops of the new ones

astrofool

back in the 90's I had a science teacher (ex-greenpeace) who called paper recycling a waste of time, and worse for the environment than simply to burn it, due to the chemicals used to break down the paper, and make it fit for use again.

Using sustainable forests is a much better way to do it.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

back in the 90's I had a science teacher (ex-greenpeace) who called paper recycling a waste of time, and worse for the environment than simply to burn it, due to the chemicals used to break down the paper, and make it fit for use again.

Using sustainable forests is a much better way to do it.

True, that could be said for a lot of recycling, the time, effort and fuel involved can in some cases use as much energy as was used to make the original product.

maniac101

Deleted User wrote: »

I have recently modified a Stanley range by fitting a second heat exchanger in the exhaust void under the hotplate & flue connecter. I burn all the household rubbish and scrap wood collected locally.
I am also in the process of experimenting with Brickettes made from waste paper & cardboard (first batch still drying) the heat from the range is fed into the solar hot cylinder and suppliments the heating & hot water system, oil being the primary heat source.

I don't want to come across as lecturing you here, but I thought I'd point out that what you're doing is against the law, see here.

Rules

Burning household waste at home or in your garden is illegal. Examples of where you cannot burn household or garden waste are:

* In a barrel or exposed pile in the yard or garden
* On a bonfire
* On an open fire, range or other solid fuel appliance
* In a mini-incinerator, for example, a home or garden incinerator purchased from a DIY centre.

Waste burners and other devices such as, mini or household incinerators, which may be located in buildings or gardens, are illegal even if they are attached to a stack or flue.

The biggest source of Ireland’s dioxin emissions are from uncontrolled home burning of domestic waste. Burning waste is an offence under waste management legislation and the Air Pollution Act, 1987. The recent Waste Management (Prohibition of Waste Disposal by Burning) Regulations 2009 (pdf) strengthens the law against waste disposal by uncontrolled burning also known as backyard burning.

Burning household waste can incur a fine of up to €3,000 or 12 months in prison upon summary conviction in a district court.

Burning rubbish at the relatively low temperatures in a range means that dioxins are released through the flue, even when burning paper. this presents a health hazard to you and your neighbours. You need to burn rubbish at much higher temperatures, for instance in controlled incinerators, before dioxins can be reduced.

maniac101

maniac101 wrote: »

I don't want to come across as lecturing you here, but I thought I'd point out that what you're doing is against the law, see here.

Burning rubbish at the relatively low temperatures in a range means that dioxins are released through the flue, even when burning paper. this presents a health hazard to you and your neighbours. You need to burn rubbish at much higher temperatures, for instance in controlled incinerators, before dioxins can be reduced.

You may be correct, but once converted into brickettes they burn in a similar way to wood or peat. In rural areas many burn their household rubbish in the domestic fire.

probe

Where I live we have a district heating/cooling and electricity generation plant fed by waste incineration. Most domestic waste is either from trees (packaging, paper), oil (plastics, plastic packaging) or organic (food waste and similar). It is a superior solution compared with burning oil or wood to heat your home - because you get the benefits of using the oil or wood for packaging the merchandise you need, before turning it into energy.

The island of Samsø in Denmark has a district heating system where they use oil to fuel the system (as well as straw). A typical house of 125 m2 area in this region with its own oil burner central heating system consumes €2,280 in oil per annum. A similar house connected to the Samsø district heating system has a heating bill of around €1,800.

If they used "rubbish" instead of oil/straw to fuel their district heating system, their costs would be materially lower.

Urban areas are plumbed for cold water from the mains. Is it not logical that they should also be plumbed for hot water over insulated pipes provided by a central heat source? Is it not even more logical that most or all of the fuel going into that central heat production factory comes from waste materials? Rather than throwing it in a landfill, or putting it on a boat to China (for which there is no market anyway at present)? And wasting fresh oil out of the ground to generate the heat energy for the community?

Properly engineered and managed incinerator combustion is far cleaner and more energy efficient compared with zillions of individual central heating systems in a community.

http://seacourse.dk/download/Groth09.pdf

who the fug

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A lot of waste is packaging, more specifically excess packaging who's main purpose is in marketing rather than protection

reducing this would result in less supertrucks too , but eventually it would reduce the fuel value of waste, less cardboard and paper , less hydrocarbons/plastics

are incenerators viable in the long term ?

With twenty years on the edge of the freight industry I have often wondered why the Finance Directors of companies never crack down on packaging, as it cost money to ship air which is what most modern boxes are full of .

who the fug

who the fug wrote: »

With twenty years on the edge of the freight industry I have often wondered why the Finance Directors of companies never crack down on packaging, as it cost money to ship air which is what most modern boxes are full of .

Best examples can be seen in any toy shop you care to name.

Most other items seem to be quite well packed, some of the "budget" electrical irems are squeezed into tiny packaging, so much so that once out of the box - it's almost impossible to get back in!