The future is rubbish.....

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 22 Sep 2008, 15:49

oilslick wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:Rubbish is a great renewable source of energy, along with nuclear and clean coal.
It's bliss isn't it

I'm floating on a cloud . . .

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 22 Sep 2008, 15:51

oilslick wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:Rubbish is a great renewable source of energy, along with nuclear and clean coal.
It's bliss isn't it

Yes and isn't Paris Hilton's life fascinating?

oilslick · Post by **oilslick** » 22 Sep 2008, 16:00

Andy Hunt wrote:
oilslick wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:Rubbish is a great renewable source of energy, along with nuclear and clean coal.
It's bliss isn't it

I'm floating on a cloud . . .

Must be time to pass it on

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 22 Sep 2008, 16:25

oilslick wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:
oilslick wrote:It's bliss isn't it

I'm floating on a cloud . . .
Must be time to pass it on

It's the same stuff that Gordon Brown's smoking . . .

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 22 Sep 2008, 16:45

Andy Hunt wrote:
oilslick wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:

I'm floating on a cloud . . .
Must be time to pass it on

It's the same stuff that Gordon Brown's smoking . . .

I'd steer clear in that case: makes people's hair go white and makes them, in a charming phrase I once heard from sb. Russian, "morally fat"

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 23 Sep 2008, 04:26

At least it's a CHP station and there's a lot of waste to mine. There could be H&S issues doing that however. Think of the fire/explosion risk with methane and hot exhaust gases from mining machinery.

oilslick · Post by **oilslick** » 23 Sep 2008, 06:17

kenneal wrote:At least it's a CHP station and there's a lot of waste to mine. There could be H&S issues doing that however. Think of the fire/explosion risk with methane and hot exhaust gases from mining machinery.

The way things are going we'll be harvesting all those old sites for old shoes and things anyway!

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 23 Sep 2008, 10:51

Totally_Baffled wrote:I agree with Adam.

I think some good progress is being made on recycling - I think the UK is up to 30% of domestic waste being recycled compared to almost nil in the mid nineties.

We are still some way off some other EU states (Holland and Germand are over 50%), but good progress none the less.

A few years ago I did some work at a similar power plant in Slough. It worked with 50% coal and 50% pelleted waste. The pelleted waste was imported from Holland

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 23 Sep 2008, 18:52

careful_eugene wrote:A few years ago I did some work at a similar power plant in Slough. It worked with 50% coal and 50% pelleted waste. The pelleted waste was imported from Holland

Was that the Slough Heat & Power site on the industrial estate? It's now biomass fired completely apart for a bit of waste.

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 23 Sep 2008, 20:37

kenneal wrote:
careful_eugene wrote:A few years ago I did some work at a similar power plant in Slough. It worked with 50% coal and 50% pelleted waste. The pelleted waste was imported from Holland
Was that the Slough Heat & Power site on the industrial estate? It's now biomass fired completely apart for a bit of waste.

Yes that's the one, we worked on the fly ash handling system probably about 10 years ago.

Keepz · Post by **Keepz** » 26 Sep 2008, 16:53

adam2 wrote:Burning waste to produce power is better than dumping it in landfill, but it would be better still to recycle more of the waste, and better still not to produce as much waste in the first place.

What exactly is the problem with dumping it into landfill? It's a lot less energy intensive than recycling it.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 26 Sep 2008, 17:13

Keepz wrote:
adam2 wrote:Burning waste to produce power is better than dumping it in landfill, but it would be better still to recycle more of the waste, and better still not to produce as much waste in the first place.
What exactly is the problem with dumping it into landfill? It's a lot less energy intensive than recycling it.

One problem with it is it legitimises of production of waste, as does any non-circular production cycle. The priority will have to be non-production of waste in the first place or, at the very least, a closed loop.

Landfill is, or at least should be, the choice of last resort.

Eventually I see us having no choice but to close the loop so the sooner we tackle it, the better.

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 26 Sep 2008, 17:32

Thing that most gets me about landfill is chucking in the organic waste, all those nutrients into a great big toxic hole in the ground, no use to anyone or anything mmph mmph

Is anyone mining landfills for metal yet?

ecoworrier · Post by **ecoworrier** » 26 Sep 2008, 19:32

I saw a piece on the news last night about this, "say no to incinerators" the NIMBY's chanted.
I thought ,what a fantastic opportunity to engage the community in waste reduction.
If you don't want an incinerator next to your school, reduce the waste you produce.If only life was that simple.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 26 Sep 2008, 20:43

Keepz wrote:
adam2 wrote:Burning waste to produce power is better than dumping it in landfill, but it would be better still to recycle more of the waste, and better still not to produce as much waste in the first place.
What exactly is the problem with dumping it into landfill? It's a lot less energy intensive than recycling it.

is recycling more energy intensive than producing new raw material?