Comments on: Half-Baked Incineration Policy http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/ "crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger" - Alex Wilcock Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:56:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Rob Whittle http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/#comment-150653 Rob Whittle Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:56:09 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/#comment-150653 Useful research on the PM2.5 fine particle science and health. There is no safe lower threshold level for PM2.5s. The dirty little secret. CA Pope, 2007 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3665914907157343039 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pope_2006_criticalreview.pdf http://www.noaca.org/pmhealtheffects.pdf http://www.ukhr.org/incineration/newhavenreport.htm On incineration, why its a goofy idea, akin to flying a plane with cracks in the wings. Useful research on the PM2.5 fine particle science and health. There is no safe lower threshold level for PM2.5s. The dirty little secret. CA Pope, 2007

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3665914907157343039

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pope_2006_criticalreview.pdf

http://www.noaca.org/pmhealtheffects.pdf

http://www.ukhr.org/incineration/newhavenreport.htm

On incineration, why its a goofy idea, akin to flying a plane with cracks in the wings.

]]> By: Rob Whittle http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/#comment-112002 Rob Whittle Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:07:04 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/#comment-112002 Sorry Graham, I was a little hard on you reading further. Plasma arc gasification is very different from traditional gasification. The former is excellent and used in the States by Veolia and Plasco Energy, the later is not too much better than EfW incineration for emissions, eg Novalis, Daganham. All are different forms of Energy from Waste. Its a pity Incinerators have cuckooed the term EfW. Search Plascos facilities in Los Angeles, Ottawa and Barcelona; this is the cost effective EfW technology way forward for tricky residual, that Veolia and ESCC are blocking out for 30yrs. Also the best form of Energy from Waste EfW or Combined Heat and Power in terms of energy efficiency, emissions and sustainability is Anaerobic Digestion (AD), eg Greenfinch, Shopshire, Premier, Durham, for food waste, organics.(Defra). With plasma gasification, 0.3% cleaning residue, sailable syngas for fuels/ electricity, 1:5 input :output energy, salt, sulphur and vitrified gravel. No 200ft chimney. Sorry Graham, I was a little hard on you reading further. Plasma arc gasification is very different from traditional gasification. The former is excellent and used in the States by Veolia and Plasco Energy, the later is not too much better than EfW incineration for emissions, eg Novalis, Daganham. All are different forms of Energy from Waste. Its a pity Incinerators have cuckooed the term EfW. Search Plascos facilities in Los Angeles, Ottawa and Barcelona; this is the cost effective EfW technology way forward for tricky residual, that Veolia and ESCC are blocking out for 30yrs.

Also the best form of Energy from Waste EfW or Combined Heat and Power in terms of energy efficiency, emissions and sustainability is Anaerobic Digestion (AD), eg Greenfinch, Shopshire, Premier, Durham, for food waste, organics.(Defra).

With plasma gasification, 0.3% cleaning residue, sailable syngas for fuels/ electricity, 1:5 input :output energy, salt, sulphur and vitrified gravel. No 200ft chimney.

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/#comment-101716 James Graham Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:33:29 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/#comment-101716 Well smart arse, as it happens I have heard of gassification, and I was using energy from waste as shorthand. I probably should have made it clearer, but the post makes it clear that I see it as an <em>alternative</em> to incineration, so where do you get the idea that I'm a fan of incineration? 18 month comeback. That's me cussed. Well smart arse, as it happens I have heard of gassification, and I was using energy from waste as shorthand. I probably should have made it clearer, but the post makes it clear that I see it as an alternative to incineration, so where do you get the idea that I’m a fan of incineration?

18 month comeback. That’s me cussed.

]]> By: Rob Whittle http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/#comment-101644 Rob Whittle Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:56:57 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2006/02/25/half-baked-incineration-policy/#comment-101644 I feel rather sad for poor Graham who seems not to do his research properly. He seems to trust government agencies and hasn't discussed PM2.5s, ultrafines or nanoparticles, or health impacts. Zero emissions are a complete deception for anyone who have looked at the emissions details of a IPPC permit. Has he not heard of MBT/AD, MHT or autoclaving or plasma gasification, all alternatives, and combination, that are better than incineration whether EfW or CHP; and tick the boxes. They ae better for emissions, health, cost, the environment and recover and recycle more. Less toxins to land via fly / IBBA or to air via 100+ chemicals, most unmonitored. Paper is not difficult to recycle or compost with carbon capture. Plastics are not difficult to separate or scan with IR laser scanning. The spurious myth is incinerator is the best, only and least cost alternative against landfil. It isn't. Incinerators are highly inefficient at producing electricity via wasteful steam boilers and turbines, leading to the phase waste of energy. CHP needs find a heat user, very difficult near cities where most are against it. Waste reduction has its place and has its limited in a consumer culture than needs time to habitulise against its natural instinct to throw away. Waste reduction has to be balanced alongside cultural redesign, reuse, recycling and recovery,; otherwise people turnoff and throw away and dispose/ flytip/ backyard burn. I would keep a tax on Landfill, but also put a tax on Incineration, giving rewards to recyclers, minimiser and zero wasters. This is`where I feel rather sad for poor Graham who seems not to do his research properly. He seems to trust government agencies and hasn’t discussed PM2.5s, ultrafines or nanoparticles, or health impacts. Zero emissions are a complete deception for anyone who have looked at the emissions details of a IPPC permit.

Has he not heard of MBT/AD, MHT or autoclaving or plasma gasification, all alternatives, and combination, that are better than incineration whether EfW or CHP; and tick the boxes. They ae better for emissions, health, cost, the environment and recover and recycle more. Less toxins to land via fly / IBBA or to air via 100+ chemicals, most unmonitored.

Paper is not difficult to recycle or compost with carbon capture. Plastics are not difficult to separate or scan with IR laser scanning.

The spurious myth is incinerator is the best, only and least cost alternative against landfil. It isn’t. Incinerators are highly inefficient at producing electricity via wasteful steam boilers and turbines, leading to the phase waste of energy. CHP needs find a heat user, very difficult near cities where most are against it.

Waste reduction has its place and has its limited in a consumer culture than needs time to habitulise against its natural instinct to throw away. Waste reduction has to be balanced alongside cultural redesign, reuse, recycling and recovery,; otherwise people turnoff and throw away and dispose/ flytip/ backyard burn.

I would keep a tax on Landfill, but also put a tax on Incineration, giving rewards to recyclers, minimiser and zero wasters. This is`where

]]>