|
|
Post by fascinating on Feb 28, 2015 14:59:33 GMT 1
Something has to be done to stop the millions of tons of waste we produce ending up in the sea, causing much damage and distress to wildlife.
Recycling our waste would obviously be the best option if it was economically feasible, but the sheer variety of stuff that we have makes it abominably difficult to recycle most of it. Thinking of the items I have discarded recently, having had a bit of a clear out, for example clothes. White socks that have become gray with many washes, worn in the soles, nothing can be done to make them look really good again. Some black pants, gone shiny and frayed and baggy, they could never be made like new. A large variety of other items include things like circuit boards from decades ago, now of no useful function; a clock radio where the plastic casing, lovely and white when bought, has yellowed, and the reception is now terrible; pots of paint with small amounts in the bottom of each; old stiff paintbrushes that would cost more to clean than to buy news ones; junk mail which includes plastic glued in with the paper - the list is nearly endless.
I suppose a preliminary sought of waste can efficiently retrieve glass, also steel cans, by hand (or magnet). For the majority however, why not just burn it, and retrieve the energy used in making the stuff, may be to heat water for local use? I imagine that the toxic fumes can be trapped in solid matrices, similarly the resulting clinker can be mixed in aggregate to form inert blocks that can be used as road foundations and such.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 2, 2015 8:05:09 GMT 1
I covered this story in depth in the late 70s, when every council was having to decide the issue due to the new EU landfill directives. The tech for clean and efficient furnaces was already satisfactorily developed by then - the Danes were already heating whole towns by burning all their waste. Locals were overwhelmingly in favour, at every public meeting I attended. The opposition came from coucil officers, who invariably put forward over-complex scare stories about how much the plant would cost, and put on the other side of the sheet tempting and we now know grossly over-exaggerated figures about how much money could be made by recycling (paper was already largely recycled in those days, and some aluminium). What they didn't mention was the vast bureaucracy and increase in employment and power such a mass enforced recycling regime would give to those council officials. In hindsight I would say that was overwhelmingly the most significant factor in their eventual decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 3, 2015 1:42:24 GMT 1
Burning anything causes CO2 which drowns polar bears. Fascists burn books. Combustion is racist and homophobic, except for brassieres and American flags*. Or was that last year? It's so hard to keep up....
*The US Flag Law prohibits the desecration by burning of flags, or the disposal of worn-out flags by any means other than burning. So the act of ignition may or may not be a federal offense depending on what you were thinking when you did it. Makes EU Directives look almost sane by comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 3, 2015 10:14:35 GMT 1
I covered this story in depth in the late 70s, when every council was having to decide the issue due to the new EU landfill directives. The tech for clean and efficient furnaces was already satisfactorily developed by then - the Danes were already heating whole towns by burning all their waste. Locals were overwhelmingly in favour, at every public meeting I attended. The opposition came from coucil officers, who invariably put forward over-complex scare stories about how much the plant would cost, and put on the other side of the sheet tempting and we now know grossly over-exaggerated figures about how much money could be made by recycling (paper was already largely recycled in those days, and some aluminium). What they didn't mention was the vast bureaucracy and increase in employment and power such a mass enforced recycling regime would give to those council officials. In hindsight I would say that was overwhelmingly the most significant factor in their eventual decision. Interesting. What was the solution to the problem of toxic fumes and waste clinker? |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 4, 2015 19:01:50 GMT 1
Burning anything causes CO2 which drowns polar bears. Fascists burn books. Combustion is racist and homophobic, except for brassieres and American flags*. Or was that last year? It's so hard to keep up.... *The US Flag Law prohibits the desecration by burning of flags No it doesn't, unless Obama has made it so beneath my radar. Merely another one of those lefty America-bashing myths. Many many countries do have such a law, however - Switzerland, Finland, Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Portugal, India, New Zealand...and of course the usual suspects, any Moslem country, China, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 4, 2015 19:05:32 GMT 1
I covered this story in depth in the late 70s, when every council was having to decide the issue due to the new EU landfill directives. The tech for clean and efficient furnaces was already satisfactorily developed by then - the Danes were already heating whole towns by burning all their waste. Locals were overwhelmingly in favour, at every public meeting I attended. The opposition came from coucil officers, who invariably put forward over-complex scare stories about how much the plant would cost, and put on the other side of the sheet tempting and we now know grossly over-exaggerated figures about how much money could be made by recycling (paper was already largely recycled in those days, and some aluminium). What they didn't mention was the vast bureaucracy and increase in employment and power such a mass enforced recycling regime would give to those council officials. In hindsight I would say that was overwhelmingly the most significant factor in their eventual decision. Interesting. What was the solution to the problem of toxic fumes and waste clinker? The Danes and Dutch solved the toxicity problems in the 70s - as I think you intimated, by efficient solid filters. Waste clinker can be used to form building blocks (much lighter and stronger than standard breeze blocks) and an Irish company has even developed a far better (cheaper, lighter, more resilient, better resistance to cold and hot weather) alternative to tarmac. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Mar 5, 2015 1:49:48 GMT 1
Burning anything causes CO2 which drowns polar bears. Fascists burn books. Combustion is racist and homophobic, except for brassieres and American flags*. Or was that last year? It's so hard to keep up.... *The US Flag Law prohibits the desecration by burning of flags No it doesn't, unless Obama has made it so beneath my radar. Merely another one of those lefty America-bashing myths. Many many countries do have such a law, however - Switzerland, Finland, Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Portugal, India, New Zealand...and of course the usual suspects, any Moslem country, China, etc. Far from lefty mythology, here's an excerpt from a report (2008) to Congress on the state of the Flag Laws The US Flag Laws are unusual in that they contain a lot of "should"s but do not specify any penalties for disobedience. The section referred to is an interesting example of "thought crime": if you burned a US flag you might or might not have been committing an offence under FPA89, depending on what you were thinking at the time. Even the defence that it was "soiled" because you had trodden on it, hung on whether you had done so intentionally. It is interesting also to compare national attitudes to the use of flags. Never mind the weirdoes you listed, Union Jack blankets, hats and underpants are at best a show of national pride, at worst a weak joke, but the Stars and Stripes |
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 5, 2015 14:35:57 GMT 1
Interesting. What was the solution to the problem of toxic fumes and waste clinker? The Danes and Dutch solved the toxicity problems in the 70s - as I think you intimated, by efficient solid filters. Waste clinker can be used to form building blocks (much lighter and stronger than standard breeze blocks) and an Irish company has even developed a far better (cheaper, lighter, more resilient, better resistance to cold and hot weather) alternative to tarmac. Thank you, that's interesting and informative. |
|
