|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 25, 2011 14:56:08 GMT 1
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1444391672891013193#Is sorting and supposedly recycling household waste unnecessary? Are we actually saving scarce resources? The people in this video think recycling is just expensive make-work and make-profit for refuse contractors and that it is more economical to make stuff from scratch than to recycle old stuff. Glass is apparently ground down to make construction material. Are we actually short of sand? We are not short of trees to make paper, that's for sure. Trees are grown to make woodpulp like potatoes are grown to make chips. What do you think? Should we simply bury the waste in landfill and harvest the methane from it? Should we burn it to generate combined power and heat for local communities?
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 25, 2011 15:57:49 GMT 1
We have limited room for landfill sites, marchesa, and we never seem to have managed to harvest a significant amount of methane.
But I suppose when we've stopped the flood of mass immigration we'll have plenty to spare.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 25, 2011 16:00:53 GMT 1
We have limited room for landfill sites, marchesa, and we never seem to have managed to harvest a significant amount of methane. But I suppose when we've stopped the flood of mass immigration we'll have plenty to spare. There's plenty of room for landfill. I suggest Wales.  |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 25, 2011 17:49:37 GMT 1
Liverpool! How a bit of land reclamation from the Mersey?
In what sense is there "no room" for landfill as a solution for refuse? Landfill can be grassed over when full just as open cast sites are. Seems to me the "no room" kneejerk response is one that deserves closer critical investigation.
We are an urban society. Average population density may be high but the vast majority of us are in urban areas. We have tons of open space, actually!
Anyway, what about the alternative of burning the refuse to generate heat and light? That's beneficial, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 25, 2011 17:51:26 GMT 1
Glass is apparently ground down to make construction material. Are we actually short of sand? Should we simply bury the waste in landfill and harvest the methane from it? Should we burn it to generate combined power and heat for local communities? I don't think this would work |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 25, 2011 17:53:08 GMT 1
Thanks for that thoughtful, thought provoking contribution louise.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 25, 2011 23:37:20 GMT 1
I heard somewhere that all the refuse that the USA has ever produced could be stored in landfill 18 miles2, 100 feet deep.
I did a brief stint in a landfill site in Hertfordshire when I was a student. The volume of bin lorries arriving hourly was stupifying. We only filled 5 - 10 acres in the few months I was there....so...eh....about 20 years/mile2
No room?
Bollocks.
Just another green menace scare story.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 26, 2011 9:37:05 GMT 1
No room? Bollocks. Just another green menace scare story. If you say so. But the last few times I heard it, it was part of an anti-immigration scare story. It seems we have plenty of room to spare for rubbish, but none for people. How very strange. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 26, 2011 12:09:56 GMT 1
I am sure jean did not intend to equate the settlement of immigrants with garbage disposal.
So, please jean, keep on topic and discuss the subject of the thread. You know the admin is quite keen on this principle on this board.
Is recycling of domestic waste really saving on scarce resources? What about other means of dealing with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 26, 2011 15:53:03 GMT 1
How many of me are there, marchesa? I am sure jean did not intend to equate the settlement of immigrants with garbage disposal. I certainly didn't - but lack of space is so often cited as a reason for not accepting immigrants (I'm sure I can find some examples of this view for you) that I think the question of possible uses of the available space is relevant. As to other methods of disposal: I don't think the problem of noxious emissions from incinerators has beed adequately dealt with, and (as I've already said) it doesn't seem to have been possible to collect methane from landfill sites in significant quantities. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 26, 2011 17:42:14 GMT 1
Maybe they just do things better in the USA. If you watch the video you will see a discussion of landfill sites, the conditions they have to satisfy and their harvesting of methane. No-one suggests methane collection is THE rationale for landfill disposal but it is a useful byproduct.
And combustion is an ever improving technology, isn't it?
Perhaps we have just taken the "recycle to save the planet" mantra a little too uncritically.
According to the video landfill disposal costs per ton is $60 and recycling costs $150 per ton. That's 150% more. Local Authorities can do a lot of other things with the equivalent of $90 per ton of waste disposal.
I'm just asking whether the recycling option the best use of resources?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 27, 2011 11:14:35 GMT 1
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way round. Shouldn't we build things that last. I'm on my third mobile phone in 12 months!
A tv used to last 20 years plus - as did all appliances. Now anything you buy is buggered in a few years.
I blame accountants.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 27, 2011 12:45:43 GMT 1
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way round. Shouldn't we build things that last. Yes, there's a lot in that. We should re-use glass bottles for example, rather than grinding them down to make something else. Other countries have a much better record than us - about all we can do is get our milk from the milkman. And it may be that recycling schemes make us more profligate in that we feel they absolve us from trying to use less in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 27, 2011 13:06:25 GMT 1
Hear, hear.
I hate the "planned obsolescence" (and short life of products) that was considered such a good idea because it kept manufacturing industry ticking over nicely.
On the other hand it DOES keep people in employment plus the multiplier effect.
We have inherited an economic system which certainly "delivers the goods" but with lots of unintended consequences. Very difficult to see how to modify it without causing hardship round the entire world.
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 27, 2011 20:46:01 GMT 1
Couple of points. Plastic: I read an article the other day that companies buy the plastic in bulk, remove the plastic bottles for recycling and then sell the rest as contaminated plastic. This is either sent to China (CO2?) or sent to lanfill! The complaint was that the % of bottles in each batch was getting less (which is pretty obvious if we are recycling more plastic!). I'm planning to write to my own council about this as we put all recycling in 1 bin. Viz: paper, cans and plastic. It would seem stupid to spend time recycling if it eventually ends up in landfill.
Some 33% approx of landfill is from the construction industry (9% from domestic waste - see WRAP site). Recently there was an article in the S. Times about a construction skip hire company that had purchased a CHP plant to generate electricity from the waste in its skips. It then sold this at a profit as renewable energy electricity at a large feed-in tariff to an energy company (Green Energy?). The strange thing is our council cancelled such a scheme for burning household waste as uneconomic!
More joined up thinking by our masters!
P
|
|
