My local council wants to spend £500 million on a waste incinerator rather than burying what is not recycled. This has created a lot of passionate opposition; consequently the arguments on both sides are heavily biased. Clearly burying waste is not the way forward and I have my doubts that incineration is much better; does anybody here have a better idea, as to the way forward?

What is not recycled they want it burned ? Hospital refuse ? What else ?

 

The volume of such for the $ amount of such incineration plant does not click well. Let the risky refuse producers install / do their incineration with their $ and do not put the hand in the taxpayer wallet; that money can be better used.

 

Extending recycling to a finer point should be the choice.

Recycling plant only way to go.

Spending 500m euros on recycling not only makes is AWESOME but generate revenue too.I mean...come on? recycled plastic ware/bags/trash bags/and Trashcans are great. The Plant gets the trash then separate the metals/plastic and stuff then recycle...you get awesome stuff while helping motha nature

corruption....500m on an incinirator?

Recycling plant only way to go.

Spending 500m euros on recycling not only makes is AWESOME but generate revenue too.I mean...come on? recycled plastic ware/bags/trash bags/and Trashcans are great. The Plant gets the trash then separate the metals/plastic and stuff then recycle...you get awesome stuff while helping motha nature

 

corruption....500m on an incinirator?

 

And when you have spent you money on a waste recycling centre, what do you do with the un recyclable stuff?

(especially since you now can't afford the incinerator?)

It really does make sense to burn it and recover the energy (the energy recovery part is why it's expensive)

Pyrolysis in a retort. I hope the final decision on spending the money was made after considering the EPA rules relating to solid waste incineration. Just burning the solid waste won't do any more, at least in the US. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/129/ssi/ssipg.html

They are not talking about sewerage sludge.

Also I rather doubt that they looked at the laws for a foreign country.

What is not recycled they want it burned ? Hospital refuse ? What else ?

 

The volume of such for the $ amount of such incineration plant does not click well. Let the risky refuse producers install / do their incineration with their $ and do not put the hand in the taxpayer wallet; that money can be better used.

 

Extending recycling to a finer point should be the choice.

 

The council already recycle 49% and have plans to extend that to 70% so there will, probably, always be un-recyclable waste. So what to do with the rest?

It’s the taxpayer’s waste I’m talking about; the hospitals in my area already incinerate their own waste.

 

It really does make sense to burn it and recover the energy (the energy recovery part is why it's expensive)

 

 

What makes energy recovery so expensive? I've always been attracted to the idea of burning waste and redirecting the heat for useful purposes. Can this be achieved more efficiently on a smaller scale?

 

And when you have spent you money on a waste recycling centre, what do you do with the un recyclable stuff?

(especially since you now can't afford the incinerator?)

It really does make sense to burn it and recover the energy (the energy recovery part is why it's expensive)

You got a point. why don't they build a Solar Toxic Material Treatment Facility? harness the energy of the sun to incinerate and vaporized hazardous and un recycable materials and at the same time get energy.

 

Saturday and Sunday for Chem Treatment while Mon-Fri are for energy making?

 

 

What makes energy recovery so expensive? I've always been attracted to the idea of burning waste and redirecting the heat for useful purposes. Can this be achieved more efficiently on a smaller scale?

What makes energy recovery so expensive is that you have to build a power station with the generators,transformers, cooling towers and so on.

Did nobody read this bit of the article

"What's more, it will generate enough renewable energy to power 25,000 homes, reducing our reliance on burning fossil fuels."

 

You got a point. why don't they build a Solar Toxic Material Treatment Facility? harness the energy of the sun to incinerate and vaporized hazardous and un recycable materials and at the same time get energy.

 

Saturday and Sunday for Chem Treatment while Mon-Fri are for energy making?

Because Gloucestershire isn't very sunny.

^{They do waste incineration in my area. The point of incinerating waste is to reduce the volume of wasted before it is placed in a landfill. Power generation is simply a byproduct. We also have a very active recycling plan but not all waste is fit for recycling. For example, cardboard is recycled but pizza boxes are not because they are too greasy. We have two trash cans; one for waste and one for recyclables. There is no sorting of the trash in the trash can. I is simply considered too labor intensive for the limited amount of clean recyclables that would be recovered. It is my understanding that some of what is put in the recyclables can is also incinerated. This is mostly because people are not careful and don’t clean items before putting them in the recyclables can. So for example if you put a half full plastic container in the recyclables can and the contents spills onto other items in the can much of that can is often rejected and incinerated.}

I have been informed that newer, cheaper and greener technologies already exist for disposing of waste and that incineration may not be the way forward. Can anyone inform me as to what these technologies may be?

I have been informed ,,,

By whom?

Shouldn't they be able to tell you " what these technologies may be"?

 

If some environmentalist pressure group is saying "the incinerator would be ‘the single biggest disaster ever visited on Gloucestershire’" shouldn't they be offering a better plan?

By whom?

Shouldn't they be able to tell you " what these technologies may be"?

 

If some environmentalist pressure group is saying "the incinerator would be ‘the single biggest disaster ever visited on Gloucestershire’" shouldn't they be offering a better plan?

 

By the article I provided and I am as keen as you are, to learn what these technologies may be. I couldn’t agree more that they should provide a better plan; it is the main reason for my posting this thread.

Edited January 20, 201313 yr by dimreepr