Protecting the Environment
Discussion
vonuber said:
As for burning waste, I'm all for it for power generation - as long as they trap the nasties given off during the burning process using carbon filters or whatnot.
Since all new EfW plants meet current requirements, and older ones will have been modified to meet the much tighter emission standards under the European Waste Incineration Directive (yes there simply had to be one) what's the problem...the problem is that like planting trees, it's not enough as "it won't bring about the societal changes" that activists seek. Fairytales about the tax gas emitted are still in circulation, regardless of the reduced amounts compared to landfill release. Also there are concerns that incineration reduces recycling, not that any Council or EU drone has ever commissioned and published a total energy audit for such things and nor are there credible figures I can see anywhere that backs up such 'concerns'. The entire arena is rife with fairytales and myths and the uninformed gullible public still seem willing to lap it up though the crumbling manmadeup climate change edifice is making a few non-sheeple start to think a bit more.
turbobloke said:
Since all new EfW plants meet current requirements, and older ones will have been modified to meet the much tighter emission standards under the European Waste Incineration Directive (yes there simply had to be one) what's the problem...
Well yes, to harmonise emissions standards so that Europe as a whole can use them safely without releasing things harmful to health (for example Dioxins, which have largely been eliminated due to tighter emissions controls).turbobloke said:
the problem is that like planting trees, it's not enough as "it won't bring about the societal changes" that activists seek. Fairytales about the tax gas emitted are still in circulation, regardless of the reduced amounts compared to landfill release. Also there are concerns that incineration reduces recycling, not that any Council or EU drone has ever commissioned and published a total energy audit for such things and nor are there credible figures I can see anywhere that backs up such 'concerns'. The entire arena is rife with fairytales and myths and the uninformed gullible public still seem willing to lap it up though the crumbling manmadeup climate change edifice is making a few non-sheeple start to think a bit more.
Well I don't want to get drawn into a GW debate but as an engineer, incineration has a lot going for it. However, recycling does too - for example, rather than shipping it all off to landfill in China, no reason why we can't have a healthy and productive recycling sector in this country, reusing raw materials for industry. I don't see the problem here, nor why the two can't go hand in hand.vonuber said:
Well I don't want to get drawn into a GW debate but as an engineer, incineration has a lot going for it. However, recycling does too - for example, rather than shipping it all off to landfill in China, no reason why we can't have a healthy and productive recycling sector in this country, reusing raw materials for industry. I don't see the problem here, nor why the two can't go hand in hand.
If recycling a material, for which the resources are not in short supply, requires more energy than extracting and processing the raw material, what sense does it make?Take glass. Is the world short of sand and chalk? No. Is there a total energy audit available with clearly labelled individual entries from end of useful life of the original item to finished recycled item that can be audited and the total verified which demonstrates the claim that energy consumption for the recycled route is less than making new glass? Nobody has provided such a total audit with source as yet.
vonuber said:
Depends - crushed glass can be used as a replacement for aggregate (i.e. replacing natural stone), for example - which shirley is better than just sending it to landfill.
Better...in terms of not paying landfill tax for the disposer, in terms of cost to the aggregate user, in terms of not crushing more stone (slag is different), in terms of overall energy consumption, in terms of total tax gas emissions, in terms of how bended the knee is to the green god?turbobloke said:
Better...in terms of not paying landfill tax for the disposer,
Indeed.turbobloke said:
in terms of cost to the aggregate user
Similar prices to stone based aggregate, as otherwise it would not be used.turbobloke said:
, in terms of not crushing more stone (slag is different)
Definately.turbobloke said:
, in terms of overall energy consumption
Now that I don't know, but aggregate has to be crushed and sized as well, so.. turbobloke said:
in terms of total tax gas emissions
Depends if gas emmissions are how you measure damage to the environment.turbobloke said:
in terms of how bended the knee is to the green god?
If by Green God you mean the Environment in which you live in, then probably it is better.turbobloke said:
So we're really no wiser on the last three 
Well no. But mining aggregate is damaging to the Environment, so in this instance glass is a useful substitute.The problem is the obsession over emissions, not what the actual point of recycling, re-using or otherwise measure is.
Take for example the proposal to improve or liberalise the Contaminated Land Regulations - how on earth can a relaxation on what is considered contaminated land be beneficial - save on saving some developer from cleaning up harmful land before selling it on to an unsuspecting public?
IIRC the legislation covers and indeed requires investigation to identify potentially contaminated sites, rather than solely covering land known to be contaminated. As expected, what limited exposure - no pun intended - I've had has shown requirements associated with e.g. planning applications to be over-zealous, requiring costly investigations where the balance of probabilities suggested nothing would be found. In my limited exposure nothing was found. If a more realistic approach to the need for costly investigations is the target of review then depending on the nature of the review I may well be in favour.
Clearly if the public sector authority, as it is usually such a beast involved, wants to pay then if they can do so without increasing Council Tax or indeed any tax burden, they will always be very welcome I suspect. It'll keep a job and a pension going for a while longer. Hang on is that good or bad...
Clearly if the public sector authority, as it is usually such a beast involved, wants to pay then if they can do so without increasing Council Tax or indeed any tax burden, they will always be very welcome I suspect. It'll keep a job and a pension going for a while longer. Hang on is that good or bad...
turbobloke said:
Better...in terms of not paying landfill tax for the disposer, in terms of cost to the aggregate user, in terms of not crushing more stone (slag is different), in terms of overall energy consumption, in terms of total tax gas emissions, in terms of how bended the knee is to the green god?
Glass is a popular thing to recycle as it weighs a lot and landfill is done by weight. I am sure many studies have been done on the impact and considering the cost of transporting new glass while dumping old glass, it is a bit of a no brainer.A friend of mine, who was studying environmental science, once pointed out that if you dump glass in the sea, it will eventually erode down to sand, which is in effect recycling, so that is all we need to do with it
Rostfritt said:
turbobloke said:
Better...in terms of not paying landfill tax for the disposer, in terms of cost to the aggregate user, in terms of not crushing more stone (slag is different), in terms of overall energy consumption, in terms of total tax gas emissions, in terms of how bended the knee is to the green god?
Glass is a popular thing to recycle as it weighs a lot and landfill is done by weight. I am sure many studies have been done on the impact and considering the cost of transporting new glass while dumping old glass, it is a bit of a no brainer.Point me to a total energy audit rather than fall into an old but unproven assumption, then we can agree. Why do you think such an audit hasn't been published? So people can just say it's a no brainer without evidence? All the circular references in vested interest websites won't do it. That's no way to proceed but it's par for the course these days.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff