[Article] College saves €100,000 a year by recycling waste

Victor

I'm not sure if I'd agree with everthing here, but it does seem to show the way forward.
http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/632638?view=Eircomnet

College saves €100,000 a year by recycling waste
From:The Irish Independent
Monday, 28th April, 2003
Grainne Cunningham

AN Irish university is saving almost €100,000 a year through an innovative recycling programme.

Recycling 56pc of its total waste means the University of Limerick (UL) is saving thousands of euro on landfill charges every year.

Glass, cardboard, old batteries and waste food are all included in the college's green drive - which has turned out to be surprisingly cost-effective according to Basil Boyce, the scheme's co-ordinator.

"A few years ago, anybody would have said being environmentally friendly costs money - now it's come complete circle," Mr Boyce said.

Typical landfill charges are about €200 a tonne, but UL has reduced this to an average of €68 through recycling. Of 110 tonnes of waste produced every month, 62 tonnes are recycled.

The system also provides free fuel to lecturers, students and members of the public. The university bought a "Multibrik Machine" which converts 20 tonnes of waste cardboard every month into fuel logs.

Anther novel idea sees almost all waste food converted into purified water which can then be used again. Any leftovers from the 600 meals the college restaurant serves each day are channelled through a dehydration system, which extracts the 85pc water contained in the food and purifies it.

The 15pc of residue remaining can be converted to compost in five weeks, but environmental science students at the college are looking at new applications.

Meanwhile, an Irish hotel is also demonstrating advantages of going green.

The Radisson SAS group has reduced its energy by 11pc and cut water usage by 25pc in three years. All hotels in the group have installed energy efficient light bulbs, low-energy consuming mini-bars and outdoor lighting steered by demand. Low flush toilets are also in use.

woolymammoth

what exactly don't you agree with? they all seem like good, cost effective and enviromently friendly ideas. more institutions should do the same.

Victor

The food could be treated and fed to farm animals. Burning the cardboard logs in ordinary fires is less than optimal use.

Then there is the matter of producing 1,300 tonnes of waste in the first place.

woolymammoth

all good points. though treating the food to feed farm animals is just one other possible solution, nothing wrong with the one they chose.

the cardboard logs, agreed. it is less than optimal use. still better than dumping though.

1300 tonnes per year does seem like a lot, but i'm sure most other institutions wouldn't be far off? and as long as most of it can be and is being recycled then it's not as bad.

embraer170

Anther novel idea sees almost all waste food converted into purified water which can then be used again. Any leftovers from the 600 meals the college restaurant serves each day are channelled through a dehydration system, which extracts the 85pc water contained in the food and purifies it.

Anyone know where I could find more information on that? I find it interesting, to say the least.

Jer

woolymammoth

can't say i know of anywhere.. google is alwasy a good place to start.

http://www.google.ie/search?q=food+dehydration+system&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=food+dehydration+system%2C+water&meta=

Keeks

Originally posted by Victor
The food could be treated and fed to farm animals. Burning the cardboard logs in ordinary fires is less than optimal use.

Then there is the matter of producing 1,300 tonnes of waste in the first place.

Didn't feeding animals with food scraps from various sources lead to big health scares in Cows and pigs in the last few years?

And why isn't burning cardboard the most optimal use? Would you prefer students to burn fossil fuels or use electricity generated from fossil fuel sources?

Victor

Originally posted by Keeks
Didn't feeding animals with food scraps from various sources lead to big health scares in Cows and pigs in the last few years?

It was the inadequate (i.e. they didn't bother) heat-treating of restaurant waste that lead to foot & mouth in the UK.

Originally posted by Keeks
And why isn't burning cardboard the most optimal use? Would you prefer students to burn fossil fuels or use electricity generated from fossil fuel sources?

It isn't optimal because (a) the cardboard could be reused (b) a central furnace would be much cleaner and efficient in energy use.

Keeks

Originally posted by Victor
It was the inadequate (i.e. they didn't bother) heat-treating of restaurant waste that lead to foot & mouth in the UK.

It isn't optimal because (a) the cardboard could be reused (b) a central furnace would be much cleaner and efficient in energy use.

(a) How exactly would you reuse the carboard. Most of it would come from packaging which has logos printed on them. And even then it would only be a matter of time before they would eventually have to be disposed of. Even if it was used as animial bedding.

(b)Grated a central furnace would be more efficient in energy use. But would it really be cleaner. What toxins would buring carboard leave off besides CO2. Anyway it is much better that the students use these carboard biks rather than fossil fuels such as coal.

Victor

Originally posted by Keeks
(a) How exactly would you reuse the carboard. Most of it would come from packaging which has logos printed on them. And even then it would only be a matter of time before they would eventually have to be disposed of. Even if it was used as animial bedding.

Apologies, I have sinned, I meant recycled.

Originally posted by Keeks
(b)Grated a central furnace would be more efficient in energy use. But would it really be cleaner. What toxins would buring carboard leave off besides CO2. Anyway it is much better that the students use these carboard biks rather than fossil fuels such as coal.

None more (and probably less) than the open fires would produce.

Typedef

Originally posted by Victor
Apologies, I have sinned, I meant recycled.

I wouldn't say that, Mike posted some interesting blurb on how the Swedes were starting to condone 'incineration' as opposed to recycling, on the grounds that... incineration was better for the environment long-term.

The thread seems to have disappeared off into the ether though.

Links
http://www.forestindustries.se/eng/kretslopp/puz4/puz4.htm

But if the collection of paper is pursued too far, the environment may suffer instead of benefiting. The waste-paper may have to be transported over long distances, which will lead to high energy consumption and increased exhaust emissions.
Recycling must be both environmentally justifiable and economically reasonable. If the costs are inordinately high, the entire system will collapse.

The problem is that the cost of paper recycling increases with higher collection levels. This cost increase is particularly marked in sparsely populated countries such as Sweden. The costs will also increase if the waste-paper used is dirty and of poor quality

http://www.forestindustries.se/eng/kretslopp/puz4/l_bland.htm

The argument being that it costs more in transport/carbon emissions/total energy to collect and recycle paper then it does to incinerate paper.

Wierdly enough, in sparsely populated countries it is environmentally 'logical' to incinerate, instead of recycle. I'm not sure that argument would hold in an amorphous urban centre like Dubin though.

Probably not.

Keeks

Originally posted by Victor
Apologies, I have sinned, I meant recycled.

There are reports that show that recycling paper/carboard can actually be more harmful to the enviroment. I have an article here from New Scientist and will post it up later (when I can find it)

Originally posted by Victor

None more (and probably less) than the open fires would produce.

A central furnace will produce the same amount CO2. It is only if it have some sort of scrubbing exhaust device that it would only release leass gas to the atmoshere. The CO2 that was burned will be used up by the Tree that was planted to replace the tree that was cut down to make the paper/carboard in the first place. If that makes any sense. It is all explained in the article (if I will ever be able to find it)

Victor

Originally posted by Keeks
There are reports that show that recycling paper/carboard can actually be more harmful to the enviroment. I have an article here from New Scientist and will post it up later (when I can find it)

Yes a balance is required, however, nuch of the cardboard would be "clean" (no food waste, plastic linings, etc.) and easily collected and transported (single location).

Originally posted by Keeks
A central furnace will produce the same amount CO2. It is only if it have some sort of scrubbing exhaust device that it would only release leass gas to the atmoshere.

While it would nominally produce a similar amount of CO2, it would produce more energy for that amount of CO2. It would produce less smoke, soot and miscellaneous poisons. As it is, all this procedure is subsidise open fires.

Originally posted by Keeks
The CO2 that was burned will be used up by the Tree that was planted to replace the tree that was cut down to make the paper/carboard in the first place. If that makes any sense. It is all explained in the article (if I will ever be able to find it)

If you haven't noticed, there is a big excess of CO2 at the moment

Keeks

Originally posted by Victor
If you haven't noticed, there is a big excess of CO2 at the moment

Here is just one of the many 'alternative' explainations as to where this excess CO2 is coming from.

[p.s I can't find that aticle at the moment, but when i do i will post it up. Will proably be early next week as I will be indispoed for the rest of the w/end]

Keeks

I've posted up the article that appeared in New Scientist about incineration of paper and the benifts of it rather than recycling. It can be found here. THe artilce makes some references to a research study done by a Matthew Leach, who is an energy policy analyst at the Centre for Environmental Technology at Imperial College, London. A link to that can be found here